‘A CONCEPTUAL DECISION-MAKING FRAMEWORK FOR THE … · A Conceptual Decision-Making Framework for the Delivery of Innovative Change in Organisations vii TABLE OF CONTENTS DECLARATION

‘A CONCEPTUAL DECISION-MAKING FRAMEWORK FOR THE DELIVERY OF INNOVATIVE CHANGE IN

ORGANISATIONS’

A Thesis Submitted to the School of Urban Development

Faculty of Built Environment & Engineering

Queensland University of Technology

In fulfilment of the requirements for the

Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

By

Achim Weippert

2010

A Conceptual Decision-Making Framework for the Delivery of Innovative Change in Organisations

ii

© Copyright Achim Weippert

2010

All Rights Reserved


iii

DECLARATION

The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted for a degree

or diploma at any other higher education institution. To the best of my knowledge

and belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by

another person except where due reference is made.

Signed: ____________________________

Date: ____________________________


iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Completion of this thesis could not have been possible without the support and

contribution of many people. The Author would formally like to acknowledge the

following people for their assistance and contribution of their valuable time.

Firstly, gratitude and sincere acknowledgement is expressed to my Principal

Supervisor, Professor Stephen Kajewski and Associate Supervisors, Professor

Martin Skitmore and Professor Paul Davidson for their unwavering support,

timely guidance, patience, constructive feedback, experience and specific

knowledge that facilitated the completion of this thesis.

Recognition and thanks are extended to the panel of building and construction

industry members and the organisations they represent for sacrificing their

valuable time to take part in completing the various rounds of the Delphi Survey

Questionnaires and for sharing their valuable experience and knowledge with the

Author. Gratitude is due to Mr. Stephen McFallan for providing valuable advice

and assistance in the development of the data collection methodology and

analysis of results. His analytical skills and experience during the final stages of

this thesis are gratefully acknowledged. Sincere recognition is also expressed to

my Editors, Ms Denise Redfern and Ms Colleen Foelz, whom I thank for their

support, expertise and valuable feedback.

Finally, appreciation is extended to my family and friends for their support,

understanding and patience.


v

ABSTRACT

Research found that today’s organisations are increasingly aware of the potential

barriers and perceived challenges associated with the successful delivery of

change — including cultural and sub-cultural indifferences; financial constraints;

restricted timelines; insufficient senior management support; fragmented key

stakeholder commitment; and inadequate training. The delivery and application of

Innovative Change (see glossary) within a construction industry organisation

tends to require a certain level of ‘readiness’. This readiness is the combination

of an organisation’s ability to part from undertakings that may be old, traditional,

or inefficient; and then being able to readily adopt a procedure or initiative which

is new, improved, or more efficient.

Despite the construction industry’s awareness of the various threats and

opportunities associated with the delivery of change, research found little

attention is currently given to develop a ‘decision-making framework’ that

comprises measurable elements (dynamics) that may assist in more accurately

determining an organisation’s level of readiness or ability to deliver innovative

change. To resolve this, an initial Background Literature Review in 2004

identified six such dynamics, those of Change, Innovation, Implementation,

Culture, Leadership, and Training and Education, which were then hypothesised

to be key components of a ‘Conceptual Decision-making Framework’ (CDF) for

delivering innovative change within an organisation.

To support this hypothesis, a second (more extensive) Literature Review was

undertaken from late 2007 to mid 2009. A Delphi study was embarked on in June

2008, inviting fifteen building and construction industry members to form a panel

and take part in a Delphi study. The selection criterion required panel members

to have senior positions (manager and above) within a recognised field or

occupation, and to have experience, understanding and / or knowledge in the


vi

process of delivering change within organisations. The final panel comprised nine

representatives from private and public industry organisations and tertiary /

research and development (R&D) universities. The Delphi study developed,

distributed and collated two rounds of survey questionnaires over a four-month

period, comprising open-ended and closed questions (referred to as factors).

The first round of Delphi survey questionnaires were distributed to the panel in

August 2008, asking them to rate the relevancy of the six hypothesised

dynamics. In early September 2008, round-one responses were returned,

analysed and documented. From this, an additional three dynamics were

identified and confirmed by the panel as being highly relevant during the

decision-making process when delivering innovative change within an

organisation. The additional dynamics (‘Knowledge-sharing and Management’;

‘Business Process Requirements’; and ‘Life-cycle Costs’) were then added to the

first six dynamics and used to populate the second (final) Delphi survey

questionnaire. This was distributed to the same nine panel members in October

2008, this time asking them to rate the relevancy of all nine dynamics. In

November 2008, round-two responses were returned, analysed, summarised and

documented. Final results confirmed stability in responses and met Delphi study

guidelines.

The final contribution is twofold. Firstly, findings confirm all nine dynamics as key

components of the proposed CDF for delivering innovative change within an

organisation. Secondly, the future development and testing of an ‘Innovative

Change Delivery Process’ (ICDP) is proposed, one that is underpinned by an

‘Innovative Change Decision-making Framework’ (ICDF), an ‘Innovative Change

Delivery Analysis’ (ICDA) program, and an ‘Innovative Change Delivery Guide’

(ICDG).

KEYWORDS: change, innovation, dynamics, decision making, framework,

Delphi, construction, organisation


vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iv

ABSTRACT v

TABLE OF CONTENTS vii

LIST OF FIGURES xv

LIST OF TABLES xvii

LIST OF ACRONYMS xix

GLOSSARY xx

1. CHAPTER ONE: BACKGROUND & INTRODUCTION - 1 - 1.1. Background Literature Review - 1 - 1.1.1. General Barriers to Change - 1 - 1.1.2. Slow Innovators - 2 - 1.1.3. Delivery / Implementation Challenges - 3 - 1.1.4. Need for Cultural Change - 4 - 1.1.5. Proficient Leadership - 5 - 1.1.6. Enhanced Training and Education - 6 - 1.1.7. Link To Research - 7 - 1.2. Hypothesis and Research Question - 8 - 1.3. Research Aim - 9 - 1.4. Research Objective - 9 - 1.5. Research Approach - 10 - 1.6. Research Contribution - 16 - 1.7. Thesis Structure - 17 -


viii

1.8. Summary: Chapter One - 18 -

2. CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW - 19 - 2.1. Change - 19 - 2.1.1. Disruptive Events - 20 - 2.1.2. Cost, Timing and Difficulty of Change - 22 - 2.1.3. Drivers of Change - 25 - 2.1.3.1. Influencing Realities - 25 - 2.1.3.2. Motivation - 26 - 2.1.3.3. Threats and Opportunities - 27 - 2.1.3.4. Need Factor: ‘What’s in it for me?’ - 27 - 2.1.3.5. Rewarding Change Efforts - 30 - 2.1.3.6. Respecting People - 32 - 2.1.4. Resistance to Change - 33 - 2.1.4.1. Individual Resistance - 34 - 2.1.4.2. Lack of Investment - 35 - 2.1.4.3. Team Resistance - 35 - 2.1.4.4. Organisational Resistance - 36 - 2.1.4.5. Lack of Shared ‘Ownership’ - 38 - 2.1.5. Overcoming Resistance to Change - 39 - 2.1.5.1. Overcoming the Perceived Lack of Time - 39 - 2.1.5.2. The Need to Overcome Fear - 40 - 2.1.5.3. Mapping Drivers and Barriers of Change - 41 - 2.1.5.4. Aligning the Delivery of Change - 42 - 2.1.5.5. Build a Knowledge-sharing Philosophy - 44 - 2.1.5.6. Training and Development - 45 - 2.1.5.7. Mentor Employees - 46 - 2.2. Innovation - 47 - 2.2.1. Innovation Defined - 47 - 2.2.2. Types of Innovation - 48 - 2.2.2.1. Product Innovation - 49 - 2.2.2.2. Process Innovation - 49 - 2.2.2.3. Knowledge Innovation - 51 - 2.2.2.4. Directionless Innovation - 53 - 2.2.3. Innovative Organisations - 53 -


ix

2.2.3.1. Culture of Innovative Organisations - 54 - 2.2.3.2. Innovative Capabilities of Organisations - 55 - 2.2.3.3. Future Innovative Organisations - 56 - 2.2.4. Measuring Innovation Success - 57 - 2.2.5. Sources that Drive Innovation - 57 - 2.2.5.1. Clients Driving Innovation - 58 - 2.2.5.2. Innovation Enabling Factors - 58 - 2.2.5.3. Knowledge Assets - 59 - 2.2.5.4. Government Influence - 60 - 2.2.5.5. Other Drivers of Innovation - 61 - 2.2.6. Sources that Challenge Innovation - 62 - 2.2.6.1. Innovation Myth vs. Reality - 62 - 2.2.6.2. Innovation Control Mechanisms - 63 - 2.3. Implementation - 64 - 2.3.1. Implementation Strategy - 64 - 2.3.2. Implementation Strategy Questions - 64 - 2.3.3. Implementation Checklist - 66 - 2.4. Culture - 67 - 2.4.1. Why Study Culture? - 67 - 2.4.2. Culture Defined - 68 - 2.4.2.1. The ‘Lilly Pond’ of Culture - 69 - 2.4.3. Characteristics of Culture - 70 - 2.4.3.1. Behaviour ‘Link’ - 70 - 2.4.3.2. Values - 71 - 2.4.3.3. Attitudes - 72 - 2.4.3.4. Belief - 73 - 2.4.3.5. Assumptions - 74 - 2.4.3.6. Relationship between Beliefs, Attitudes, Values and Behaviour - 74 - 2.4.4. Cultural Dimensions and Classifications - 75 - 2.4.4.1. Five Cultural Dimensions - 75 - 2.4.4.2. Culture Classifications - 77 - 2.4.5. Changing Culture - 78 - 2.4.4.1. Culture Change Methods - 78 - 2.4.4.2. Culture Change Themes - 79 - 2.4.4.3. Motivation and Incentives - 80 -


x

2.4.5.3.1. Learning Motivators - 81 - 2.4.5.3.2. Motivation Strategies and Beliefs - 81 - 2.4.5.3.3. Rewards and Compensation - 83 - 2.4.5.3.4. Trust and Willingness to Commit - 84 - 2.5. Leadership - 85 - 2.5.1. Leadership Defined - 85 - 2.5.2. Common Leadership Characteristics - 86 - 2.5.3. Leadership Actions - 88 - 2.5.4. Leadership Approach - 88 - 2.5.5. Changing Leaders - 91 - 2.5.6. Creating a Culture of Collaboration - 91 - 2.6. Training and Education - 92 - 2.6.1. Delivery Mechanisms - 92 - 2.6.2. Action Points - 93 - 2.7. Innovative Change Delivery Process - 94 - 2.7.1. Business-related Challenges - 94 - 2.7.2. Project-related Challenges - 95 - 2.7.3. The Need to Plan Ahead - 96 - 2.7.4. ‘Camouflaged’ Delivery Process - 98 - 2.8. Summary: Chapter Two - 98 -

3. CHAPTER THREE: MIND MAPPING DECISION-MAKING FACTORS - 101 - 3.1. Validating the Use of Mind Mapping - 101 - 3.2. The Mind-mapping Process - 103 - 3.3. Relevant Factors and Sub-factors for each Dynamic - 104 - 3.4. Summary: Chapter Three - 113 -

4. CHAPTER FOUR: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY — AN INTRODUCTION - 114 - 4.1. What is ‘Research’ and ‘Methodology’? - 114 - 4.2. Seven ‘New Knowledge’ Questions - 115 - 4.3. Research Types and Methods Considered - 117 - 4.4. Research Style: Surveying - 118 - 4.4.1. Surveying: Strengths and Weaknesses - 118 - 4.5. Research Classifications - 119 -


xi

4.5.1. Quantitative Research Approach - 120 - 4.5.2. Qualitative Research Approach - 120 - 4.5.3. Qualitative vs. Quantitative: Strengths and Weaknesses - 121 - 4.5.4. Triangulation - 123 - 4.6. Summary: Chapter Four - 124 -

5. CHAPTER FIVE: THE DELPHI TECHNIQUE - 128 - 5.1. Background - 128 - 5.2. Why Delphi? - 130 - 5.3. Delphi Origin - 131 - 5.4. Four Delphi Phases - 134 - 5.5. Two Forms of a Delphi Process - 135 - 5.5.1. Conventional / Conference Delphi Process - 135 - 5.5.2. Technology-Enhanced (Real-time) Delphi Process - 136 - 5.6. Variations to the Delphi Process - 136 - 5.7. Delphi Technique Strengths - 137 - 5.8. Delphi Weakness - 138 - 5.9. The Eleven-step Delphi Process - 140 - 5.9.1. Research Approach to the Eleven-step Delphi Process - 144 - 5.10. Panel of Industry Experts - 145 - 5.11. Delphi Survey Questionnaire Response Options - 147 - 5.12. Confidentiality and Ethical Clearance - 148 - 5.13. Summary: Chapter Five - 149 -

6. CHAPTER SIX: DATA ANALYSIS AND KEY FINDINGS - 151 - 6.1. Data Analysis Methodology: Plan and Activities - 151 - 6.1.1. Statistical Analysis Package: GenStat © - 152 - 6.2. Data Analysis and Key Findings - 154 - 6.2.1. Background to Response Data Analysed (Step One) - 154 - 6.2.2. Preliminary Data Analysis (Step Two): Explorative - 155 - 6.2.2.1. Descriptive Analysis - 155 - 6.2.2.2. Measures of Central Tendency and Dispersion - 158 - 6.2.3. Advanced Data Analysis (Step Three): Profile Analysis - 162 - 6.2.3.1. Highest Education - 163 - 6.2.3.2. Current Position - 164 -


xii

6.2.3.3. Length of Employment (In Current Role) - 164 - 6.2.3.4. Organisation Classification - 164 - 6.2.3.5. Organisation Size - 164 - 6.2.3.6. Organisation Sector - 165 - 6.2.4. Advanced Data Analysis (Step Three): Ranking of Dynamics - 165 - 6.2.5. Advanced Analysis (Step Three): Relevance of Nine Dynamics - 166 - 6.2.5.1. Relevance of Whole of Business Life-cycle cost - 166 - 6.2.5.2. Relevance of Knowledge-sharing and Management - 168 - 6.2.5.3. Relevance of Training and Education - 170 - 6.2.5.4. Relevance of Impact on End-client Business - 173 - 6.2.5.5. Relevance of Change - 175 - 6.2.5.6. Relevance of Leadership - 178 - 6.2.5.7. Relevance of Implementation - 181 - 6.2.5.8. Relevance of Innovation - 184 - 6.2.5.9. Relevance of Culture - 185 - 6.2.6. Factor and Cluster Analysis - 189 - 6.2.6.1. Factor Analysis - 189 - 6.2.6.2. Cluster Analysis - 189 - 6.2.7. Differential Analysis - 190 - 6.2.7.1. Differential Analysis: Based on Experience - 190 - 6.2.7.2. Differential Analysis: Based on Education - 193 - 6.2.7.3. Differential Analysis: Based on Employment Length - 195 - 6.2.7.4. Differential Analysis: Based on Organisation Size - 197 - 6.2.7.5. Differential Analysis: Based on Public vs. Private Sector - 199 - 6.2.7.6. Differential Analysis: Based on Organisation Classification - 201 - 6.2.7.7. Differential Analysis: Based on Geographic Location - 204 - 6.2.8. Differential Analysis of Relevant Data - 206 - 6.2.8.1. Ranking of Dynamics: By Experience - 206 - 6.2.8.2. Ranking of Dynamics: By Education Level - 208 - 6.2.8.3. Ranking of Dynamics: By Employment Length - 210 - 6.2.8.4. Ranking of Dynamics: By Organisation Size - 212 - 6.2.8.5. Ranking of Dynamics: By Public vs. Private Sector - 214 - 6.2.8.6. Ranking of Dynamics: By Organisation Classification - 217 - 6.2.8.7. Ranking of Dynamics: By Geographic Location - 219 - 6.3. Summary: Chapter Six – Key Findings - 221 -


xiii

6.3.1. Profile Analysis of Industry Experts - 221 - 6.3.2. Differential Analysis - 222 - 6.3.3. Relevance of Dynamics - 225 -

7. CHAPTER SEVEN: A CONCEPTUAL DECISION-MAKING FRAMEWORK (CDF) - 227 -

7.1. Summary: Chapter Seven - 237 -

8. CHAPTER EIGHT: DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND PROPOSED FUTURE RESEARCH - 238 -

8.1. Discussion and Conclusions - 238 - 8.2. Proposed Future Research - 239 - 8.2.1. Nine Research Proposals - 239 - 8.2.2. Proposed ‘Innovative Change Delivery Process’ (ICDP) - 242 - 8.2.3. Proposed ‘Innovative Change Decision-making Framework’ (ICDF) - 243 - 8.2.4. Proposed ‘Innovative Change Delivery Analysis’ (ICDA) - 244 - 8.2.5. Proposed ‘Innovative Change Delivery Guide’ (ICDG) - 245 - 8.3. Summary: Chapter Eight - 246 -

REFERENCES - 248 -

APPENDICES - 261 -

Appendix A: Implementation Strategies - 261 -

Appendix B: Six Culture Classifications - 264 -

Appendix C: Six Culture Change Methods - 271 - C.1. Change Activity Model - 271 - C.2. Change Process Model - 272 - C.3. Decision-Making Model - 273 - C.4. Force-field Model - 274 - C.5. Six Key Methods of Changing Culture - 276 - C.6. Generic Approaches to Changing Culture - 278 - C.7. Three-Stage Model - 279 -

Appendix D: Mind Mapping Relevant Factors - 282 -


xiv

D.1. ‘Change’ Dynamic - 283 - D.2. ‘Innovation’ Dynamic - 285 - D.3. ‘Implementation’ Dynamic - 286 - D.4. ‘Culture’ Dynamic - 287 - D.5. ‘Leadership’ Dynamic - 289 - D.6. ‘Training and Education’ Dynamic - 289 -

Appendix E: Six Research Methods Considered - 290 -

Appendix F: Ten-step Process for Developing Survey Questionnaires - 292 -

Appendix G: Delphi Survey - Invitation Letter - 294 -

Appendix H: Delphi Survey Pack (Round One) - 295 -

Appendix I: Delphi Survey Pack (Round Two) - 317 -

Appendix J: Data Analysis and Key Findings - 339 -

Appendix K: Proposed ‘Innovative Change Decision-making Framework’ (ICDF) - 349 -

Appendix L: Proposed ‘Innovative Change Delivery Analysis’ (ICDA) - 354 -

Appendix M: Proposed ‘Innovative Change Delivery Guide’ (ICDG) - 355 -


xv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1: Six Decision-making Dynamics - 8 -

Figure 1-2: Research Activities Snapshot - 13 -

Figure 2-1: Difficulty and Cost of Change - 23 -

Figure 2-2: Competitive Advantage - 24 -

Figure 2-3: McClelland’s Theory of Needs - 28 -

Figure 2-4: Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs - 29 -

Figure 2-5:Expectancy Theory - 31 -

Figure 2-6: Commitment to People - 33 -

Figure 2-7: Knowledge Innovation: As a Competitive Resource - 52 -

Figure 2-8: Implementation Checklist - 66 -

Figure 2-9: The ‘Lilly Pond’ of Culture - 70 -

Figure 2-10: Belief and Attitude - 72 -

Figure 2-11: Organisational Cultures and Climate - 75 -

Figure 2-12: Technology / Innovation Progress S-curve - 87 -

Figure 2-13: Construction Forecast Example for Australia (2008–2015) - 97 -

Figure 3-1: Example of How to Create a Mind Map - 103 -

Figure 3-2: Mind-Mapping Approach — Identifying Decision-making Factors and

Sub-factors - 104 -

Figure 3-3: Relationships between Dynamics, Factors and Sub-factors - 105 -

Figure 3-4: Mind Mapping Results — Six ‘Sets’ of Factors / Sub-factor - 106 -

Figure 4-1: Triangulation of Qualitative and Quantitative Data - 124 -

Figure 5-1: Three Construction Industry Research Dynamics to Consider - 129 -

Figure 5-2: The Eleven-step Delphi Process - 141 -

Figure 6-1: Mean Response of Dynamics and Factors - 156 -

Figure 6-2: Normal Distribution - Standard Deviation Bell Curve - 158 -

Figure 6-3: Mean Response for Nine Dynamics: By Round - 161 -

Figure 6-4: Relevance of Whole of Business Life-cycle Cost - 167 -


xvi

Figure 6-5: Relevance of Knowledge-sharing and Management - 169 -

Figure 6-6: Relevance of Training and Education - 171 -

Figure 6-7: Relevance of Impact on End-client Business - 174 -

Figure 6-8: Relevance of Change - 176 -

Figure 6-9: Relevance of Leadership - 179 -

Figure 6-10: Relevance of Implementation - 182 -

Figure 6-11: Relevance of Innovation - 184 -

Figure 6-12: Relevance of Culture - 186 -

Figure 6-13: Ranking of Dynamics: By Experience - 208 -

Figure 6-14: Ranking of Dynamics: By Education Level - 210 -

Figure 6-15: Ranking of Dynamics: By Employment Length - 212 -

Figure 6-16: Ranking: By Organisation Size - 214 -

Figure 6-17: Ranking of Dynamics: By Public vs. Private Sector - 216 -

Figure 6-18: Ranking of Dynamics: By Organisation Classification - 217 -

Figure 6-19: Ranking of Dynamics: By Geographic Location - 220 -

Figure 6-20: Relevance and Rank of Nine Dynamics - 226 -

Figure 7-1: ‘Conceptual Decision-making Framework’ (CDF) - 228 -


xvii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-1: Key to Figure 1-2 - 14 -

Table 2-1: Disruptive Events Causing a ‘Quantum Shift’ in Change - 21 -

Table 2-2: The ARCTIC Approach for Determining Rewards - 32 -

Table 2-3: Individual Resistance to the Delivery of Change - 34 -

Table 2-4: Organisational Sources of Resistance to Change - 37 -

Table 2-5: Change Force-field Analysis - 41 -

Table 2-6: Six ways of Minimising Restraining Forces of Change - 42 -

Table 2-7:Government Influence on Innovation - 61 -

Table 2-8: Innovation Myth vs. Reality - 63 -

Table 2-9: Main Culture Change Themes - 80 -

Table 2-10: Learning Motivators - 81 -

Table 2-11: Motivational Strategies - 82 -

Table 2-12: Six Leadership Approaches - 90 -

Table 2-13: Business-related Barriers - 95 -

Table 2-14: Project-related Challenges - 96 -

Table 3-1: Validating the Use of Mind Mapping - 102 -

Table 3-2: Key to Figure 3-4 - Six Dynamics and their Relevant Factors / Sub-

Factors - 107 -

Table 5-1: Reasons to use the Delphi Technique - 130 -

Table 5-2: Six ‘Justifying’ Dynamics for Employing the Delphi Technique - 131 -

Table 5-3: Hegelian Principle - 133 -

Table 5-4: Four Delphi Phases - 135 -

Table 5-5: Key Advantages to the Delphi Technique - 137 -

Table 5-6: Key to Figure 5-2 - 142 -

Table 5-7: Expert Panel Members - 147 -

Table 5-8: Five Response Options - 148 -

Table 6-1: Survey Analysis Steps and Activities - 152 -


xviii

Table 6-2: Mean and Variance of Responses: Round-one vs. Round-two - 160 -

Table 6-3: Profile Analysis Categories - 163 -

Table 6-4: Final Ranking of the Nine Dynamics - 166 -

Table 6-5: Mean Response: Experience in Delivering Change - 192 -

Table 6-6: Mean Response: Education - 194 -

Table 6-7: Mean Response: Employment Length - 196 -

Table 6-8: Mean Response: Organisational Size (Annual turnover) - 198 -

Table 6-9: Mean Response: Public vs. Private Sector - 200 -

Table 6-10: Mean Response: Organisation Classification - 203 -

Table 6-11: Mean Response: Geographic Location - 205 -

Table 6-12: Ranking of Dynamics: By Experience - 207 -

Table 6-13: Ranking of Dynamics: By Education Level - 209 -

Table 6-14: Ranking of Dynamics: By Employment Length - 211 -

Table 6-15: Ranking: By Organisation Size - 213 -

Table 6-16: Ranking of Dynamics: By Public vs. Private Sector - 215 -

Table 6-17: Ranking of Dynamics: By Organisation Classification - 218 -

Table 6-18: Ranking of Dynamics: By Geographic Location - 219 -

Table 6-19: Profile Analysis of Industry Experts – Seven Key Findings - 222 -

Table 6-20: Differential Analysis – Seven Key Findings - 223 -

Table 6-21: Relevance and Rank of Nine Dynamics - 225 -

Table 7-1: Proposed Conceptual Decision-making Framework (CDF) - 229 -

Table 8-1: Nine Research Proposals – Based on Findings - 240 -


xix

LIST OF ACRONYMS

CDF : Conceptual Decision-making Framework

ICDA : Innovative Change Delivery Analysis

ICDF : Innovative Change Decision-making Framework

ICDG : Innovative Change Delivery Guide

ICDP : Innovative Change Delivery Process

ICP : Innovative Change Process’

ICT : Information Communication Technology

KM : Knowledge Management


xx

GLOSSARY

ANOVA

(Analysis of Variance)

ANOVA is ‘a statistical procedure for analysing

experimental data’ OECD (2009), further described in

Sheskin (2002) as a collection of statistical models in which

the observed variance is partitioned into components due

to different explanatory variables.

Central Tendency

‘The tendency of quantitative data to cluster around some

variate value. The position of the central value is usually

determined by one of the measures of location such as the

mean, median or mode. The closeness with which values

cluster around the central value is measured by one of the

measures of dispersion such as the mean deviation or

standard deviation’ OECD (2009).

Change

(Managed and

Unmanaged)

Two forms of change are recognised:

o Managed Change — ‘To [intentionally] make the form,

nature, content, future course etc., of (something)

different from what it is or from what it would be if left

alone; to become different in essence; [or] losing one’s /

its original nature’ Dictionary.com (2009)

o Unmanaged Change — something which can change of

its own accord (natural progression) such as

evolutionary change, market shifts, client expectations /

trends, fluctuating economy, governing regulations /

guidelines etc.

Client ‘A person or group that uses the professional advice or

receives benefits, services etc.; a customer; dependent [or]

anyone under the patronage of another’ Dictionary.com

(2008a).


xxi

Cluster Analysis

‘A general approach to multivariate problems in which the

aim is to see whether the individuals fall into groups or

clusters. There are several methods of procedure, most

depend on setting up a metric to define the “closeness” of

individuals’ OECD (2009). Further described in Upton and

Cook (2002) as a multivariate analysis technique that

seeks to organise information about variables so that

relatively homogeneous groups, or ‘clusters’ can be

formed.

Cohort Analysis ‘A cohort is a group of persons who experience a certain

event in a specified period of time’ [who are then selected

and studied] according to occupation, age or geographical

area [and usually] followed up over a period of time’ OECD

(2009).

Correlations Analysis

‘In its most general sense correlation denotes the

interdependence between quantitative or qualitative data.

The concept is quite general and may be extended to more

than two variates. [Correlation] is most frequently used in a

somewhat narrower sense to denote the relationship

between measurable variates or ranks’ OECD (2009).

Culture ‘Culture’ is defined as:

o a collection of experiences, perceptions, values,

attitudes, beliefs, morals and ‘ways of thinking’ held in

common, that both ‘represent’ and ‘influence’ the way

‘things’ are collectively done by members within an

organisation, group or team.

Descriptive Statistics

‘A term used to denote statistical data of a descriptive kind

or the methods of handling such data, in contrast with

theoretical statistics which, though dealing with practical

data, usually involve some process of inference in

probability for their interpretation’ OECD (2009). Further


xxii

described in Sheskin (2002) as ‘analyses used to describe

the [survey] population studied’.

Dispersion ‘The degree of scatter shown by observations … usually

measured as an average deviation about some central

value [such as] mean deviation [or] standard deviation, but

may also be a mean deviations of values among

themselves’ OECD (2009).

Dynamic ‘An efficient incentive… a basic or interactive force…

especially one that motivates, affects development or

stability etc. Dictionary.com (2008b).

This research defines a ‘Dynamic’ as an essential element,

a key component or an abstract part of the ‘Conceptual

Decision-making Framework’ (CDF) for delivering

innovative change within an organisation (Chapter 7),

where each dynamic is underpinned by a number of

relative and measurable factors and sub-factors.

Expert ‘An experienced person who has special skill or knowledge

in some particular field, area or subject’ Dictionary.com

(2008c). An ‘expert’ is defined as:

o an experienced individual or group skilled and / or

knowledgeable in the process of delivering change

within the construction industry arena - be it a new

knowledge, plan, proposal, idea, system, program,

software etc.

Exploratory Data Analysis

Described in Upton and Cook (2002) as the process of

using statistical information to investigate data sets in order

to understand their characteristic importance

Factor ’One that actively contributes to an accomplishment, result,

or process [or] a fundamental, essential, or irreducible

constituent of a composite entity, [dynamic, etc.]’

Dictionary.com (2008d).


xxiii

Factor Analysis Upton and Cook (2002) describe this as a ‘statistical

procedure used to uncover relationships among many

variables [or] to denote the analysis of data’ OECD (2009).

Further described in Lingard and Rowlinson (Unknown) as

‘a powerful and often-used technique in construction

management and real estate research. Although the

process is relatively straightforward there are certain

“rules” in relation to data and sample size which must be

considered in the analysis. Small samples and low N:p

ratios can lead to erroneous conclusions being drawn and

the “strength” of the data should be considered in such

circumstances The use of factor analysis should be

carefully justified in order that research can be considered

to be rigorous, replicable and of high quality’.

Frequency Distribution

‘A specification of the way in which the frequencies of

members of a population are distributed according to the

values of the variates which they exhibit’ OECD (2009).

Implementation ‘To fulfil, to perform, to carry out, to put into effect etc.

according to or by means of a definite plan or procedure’

Dictionary.com (2008e).

Inferential Statistics

‘Estimation is concerned with inference about the

numerical value of unknown population values from

incomplete data such as a sample. [It is] information that

can [essentially] be inferred with high confidence from

statistical properties of the released data’ OECD (2009).

Further described in Sheskin (2002) as ‘inference about a

population from a random sample drawn from it. These

statistics generalise the sample to the population statistics.’

Initiative An ‘initiative’ is any plan, proposal, idea, scheme, action,

program, tool, project, system, etc.


xxiv

Innovation According to Manley (2006, 3-6), innovation within the

construction industry can be defined as ‘a broad range of

activities packaged together’. The literature further defines

innovation as:

o ‘The creation of new knowledge and turning ideas into

valuable products and services’ Skyrme and Amidon

(1997)

o ‘Developing and implementing a new idea in an applied

setting’ RICS and Salford University (2007, 3)

o ‘The effective generation and implementation of a new

idea, which enhances overall organisational

performance’ RICS and Salford University (2007, 9-14)

o ‘The process whereby new and improved products,

processes, materials and services are developed and

transferred to a market where they are appropriate’

White and Bruton (2007, 16-165, 243-57, 393).

‘Innovation’ is defined as:

o The generation and application of new knowledge; an

original idea, product, process, material or service that

enhances overall performances.

Innovative Change

Innovative Change is defined as:

o A new or improved way of doing something better; or

o The intentional (controlled / deliberate) development or

unintentional (uncontrolled / natural) progression of an

idea, knowledge, product, process, system, service or

course of action that appropriately enhances and

transforms overall performances and efficiencies within

a practical environment.

Interdependent [Things that are] ‘mutually dependent [or] reliant on one

another’ Dictionary.com (2008f) and AllWords.com (2008).


xxv

Key Dictionary.com (2008g) defines the term ‘key’ as ’a crucial

element serving as a key component [of something, which

is] of vital importance’.

A factor or dynamic is also referred to as ‘key’, based on

the relevancy rating it receives. That is:

o By referring to a scale of 1 (no relevancy) to 5 (most

relevant), should any of these receive a relevancy rate

of between 3 and 5 (somewhat to most relevant), then it

is considered to be a ‘key’ component of a CDF for

delivering innovative change within an organisation.

Knowledge Management (KM)

Based on the findings of Rollett (2003, i-xii, 65-66, 209-29),

Sensky (2002, 387-96), Bishop (2002, vi, 3, 30), Amin et al.

(2001, 50-51), Standards Australia (2001, viii, 7, 56), Egbu

(2004, 301-13), SAI-Global (2004, iv, 2-16), Tiwana (2000,

xxvi, 5, 608) and Jennex (2005, viii-xii, 372), KM is defined

as:

o A multifunctional approach towards effectively using

knowledge assets to optimise the decision-making

process in meeting business objectives; enhancing

overall efficiencies; and improving current and future

operations achieved.

o It focuses on employing innovative processes and cost-

effective systems that selectively acquire, create, store,

update (in real time) and share value-adding, internal

and external, explicit and tacit knowledge and

experiences.

Kruskal-Wallis Test

Described in Sheskin (2002) as the non-parametric

equivalent of ANOVA used to compare two or more groups

by ranks… which can be used to analyse ordinal variables.


xxvi

Leadership ‘The ability to influence [individuals or] a group toward the

achievement of common goals and objectives … the art of

getting things done through others’ Robbins (1998, 138-86,

347, 595-98, 601-46) and White and Bruton (2007, 16-165,

243-57, 393).

Learning Culture

‘Learning culture’ is defined as:

o Where practicing the collective disciplines and

individual learning qualities and capabilities of

employees is encouraged in an environment that is

committed to and promotes: enhanced levels of

thinking, continuous discovery, and the sharing of

(existing and new) knowledge and experiences.

Life Cycle ‘The characteristic course of developmental changes… a

progression through a series of differing stages of

development’ Dictionary.com (2008h).

Mean ‘The average value of a dataset [or] the sum of all the data

divided by the number of variables. The arithmetic mean is

commonly called the ‘average’ Cann (2009).

Mean Deviation ‘A measure of dispersion derived from the average

deviation of observations from some central value, such

deviations being taken absolutely… the first absolute

moment’ OECD (2009).

Median ‘The middle value in a dataset [that is] half the variables

have values greater than the median and the other half

values which are less. The median is less sensitive to

outliers (extreme scores) than the mean and thus a better

measure than the mean for highly skewed distributions’

Cann (2009).

Method / Methodology

Defined by Fellows and Liu (2003, 28-32, 44, 91-97) as ‘the

principals and procedures of a logical thought processes…


xxvii

applied to a scientific investigation’. Dictionary.com (2008i)

further described it as:

o ‘A procedure, technique, or way of doing something… in

accordance with a definite plan… a manner or mode of

procedure… an orderly, logical, or systematic way of

instruction, inquiry, investigation, experiment,

presentation etc.’

o ‘A body of practices, procedures and rules used by

those who work in a discipline or engage in an inquiry’

o ‘The branch of philosophy that analyses the principles

and procedures of inquiry in a particular discipline’

o ‘The theoretical analysis of the methods appropriate to a

field of study or to the body of methods and principles

particular to a branch of knowledge’.

Mode ‘The most frequently occurring value in a dataset. Easy to

determine, but subject to variation and of limited value’

Cann (2009).

Non-parametric Statistics

‘[Statistics that] do not depend on the parameters of the

parent population from which a sample is drawn’ OECD

(2009). Further described in Sheskin (2002) as ‘methods

often referred to as distribution-free methods as they do

not rely on assumptions that the data are drawn from a

given probability distribution’.

Organisation ‘An administrative and functional structure (as a business)

[including] the personnel of such a structure’ Mirriam-

Webster's Online Dictionary (2008); or ’a group of people

who work together’ Dictionary.com (2008j), including for

example project teams, action or task groups, etc.

Parametric Statistics

‘Concerning the parameter(s) of a distribution’ OECD

(2009) and described in Sheskin (2002) as a branch of


xxviii

statistics that assumes data come from a type of probability

distribution.

Research ‘A systematic investigation, including research

development, testing and evaluation, designed to develop

or contribute to generalised knowledge’ Dictionary.com

(2008k) and UAB University of Alabama at Birmingham

(2008). Also defined in Dictionary.com (2008k) as ‘to study

(something) thoroughly so as to present in a detailed,

accurate manner’.

‘Research’ is defined as:

o ‘A practical, methodical and realistic form of

investigation aimed at discovering, interpreting, testing

or evaluating ‘something’, then contributing these

findings towards human knowledge, thereby validating

or disproving certain truths of the world around us’.

Stakeholder ‘A key person or group that has an investment, share, or

interest in something [such] as a business, industry or

enterprise’ Dictionary.com (2008l).

Standard Deviation (s.d.)

Definitions include:

o ‘The most widely used measure of dispersion of a

frequency distribution. It is equal to the positive square

root of the Variance’ OECD (2009).

o ‘It is a number which is calculated to find an 'average'

number for the distance of the majority of measures

from the mean’ Straker (2007).

o ‘To determine the standard deviation of a dataset:

calculate the mean all the scores; find the deviation of

each score from the mean [and then] calculate the

average of the deviations’ Cann (2009).


xxix

Sustainable ‘To keep in existence; maintain; and encourage

competently [or] to undergo; experience; continue or

endure [something] without giving way or yielding’

Dictionary.com (2008m).

Subculture ‘Subculture’ is defined as:

o clusters or groups of people naturally developed and / or

formed through regular interaction within their common

work and/or social environment – based on shared

understandings and interpretations of common events

and activities.

Team ’A number of persons associated in some joint action; a

group organised to work together [or] a cooperative unit’

Dictionary.com (2008n).

Training and Education

From Gupta and Thomas (2001) and Swe and Kleiner

(1998), ‘Training and Education’ is described as

‘…unlocking and developing an individual employee’s

creativity and skills (to do things differently through newly

attained knowledge and experience)... and to be able to

effectively apply and communicate these new skill sets

within their work environment’.

‘Training and education’ is defined as:

o a structured, unstructured, formal, and / or informal

delivered process of unlocking an individual’s creativity

and knowledge; thereby developing both personal and

professional skill sets, and communicating and

promoting these experiences to others within and

outside the work environment.

Chapter One – Background & Introduction

- 1 -

1. CHAPTER ONE: BACKGROUND & INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background Literature Review

Following is a brief snapshot of potential influences (dynamics) that may

encounter when delivering innovative change in organisations.

1.1.1. General Barriers to Change

According to White and Bruton (2007, 16-165, 243-57, 393), reasons for

delivering both managed (intentional) and unmanaged (unintentional - due to

natural progression) change vary, for example:

• A small organisation may want to adjust or replace certain elements of a

product, tool or process to help realise one or more business goals and

objectives (such as maximising its innovative capacity, increasing profitability

levels, enhancing competitiveness); or

• The industry as a whole may undergo a more ‘radical shift’ such as having to

adhere to a change in governing policies, or follow new industry rules and

regulations.

More than a decade of research on the construction industry’s ‘inefficiency’

(pertaining to time, cost and quality) and its exposure to countless challenges

and barriers associated to the delivery of the above changes is well documented

— Gann (1997); Robbins (1998, 138-86, 347, 595-98, 601-46); Cleveland Jr.

(1999); Weippert (2000); Weippert et al. (2002, 103-16); Weippert and Kajewski


- 2 -

(2008b, , Weippert and Kajewski (2008a, , Weippert and Kajewski (2008c);

Weippert and Kajewski (2009, 319-38); and Price Waterhouse Coopers (2002).

Here common challenges faced in the delivery of ‘something new’ (hardware,

software, process, system, policy etc.) include:

• poor stakeholder coordination and commitment;

• organisational hierarchy and bureaucracy;

• wavering senior management support and leadership;

• cultural and sub cultural indifferences;

• insufficient time and budget constraints;

• stakeholder incompatibility;

• restricted vs. unstructured communication lines;

• inefficient or no formal decision-making protocols;

• inefficient implementation strategies;

• outdated, irrelevant or no good-practice guidelines;

• inadequate training, education and support programs;

• ineffective or no motivation and incentive programs; as well as

• limited or no formal follow-up assessment and feedback protocols.

Based on such challenges, research suggests that the success in delivering

innovative change may depend on how these challenges are measured and

managed.

1.1.2. Slow Innovators

From an international perspective, the Australian building and construction

industry is described in a report by Kajewski and Weippert (2003) as a slow

innovator, and further identified as being slower to innovate than a number of its

counterparts in other leading countries such as the United Kingdom, France,

Spain, Germany and the United States. The report also identifies five key

concerns that tend to challenge innovation within the Australian building and

construction industry:

• Poor Management: Typified by senior management not being able to:


- 3 -

o sufficiently guide or lead the innovation process;

o employ the expertise to secure the required funding and resources;

o effectively drive or control the creative environment; or

o take a whole-of-organisation view of the innovative process.

• Incompatible Technology: Difficulty in integrating existing technology

infrastructures or platforms with newly advanced systems or innovative

solutions – gaining limited support from decision makers;

• Enhanced Risk: Exemplified by factors such as increased competition;

commercialisation of unproven, unknown and untested initiatives; regulatory

uncertainties; risk of not realising the expected benefits;

• Fragmentation of the Construction Industry: Typified by:

o limited methods, systems and processes available to encourage the uptake

and effective management of innovative initiatives;

o dispersed nature of virtual teams working within multiple organisational and

project structures; and

o difficulty in protecting the intellectual property within a dynamic and

fragmented environment — also supported in Weippert and Kajewski (2009,

319-38), Brandon (2006) and Price Waterhouse Coopers (2002).

• Bureaucracy: Although described by Egbu (2004, 301-13) as a ‘inhibiting

spontaneity’ threatening the innovation processes within certain construction

industry organisations, it is also referred to by Love (1996) as a key driver of

innovation uptake, where it forcefully encourages the ‘rapid and continuous

transformation of ideas into superior products’.

1.1.3. Delivery / Implementation Challenges

Today’s organisations are faced with the challenge of constantly keeping up with

new and improved work practices or the need to become more client orientated,

competitive and productive. It is these ‘organisational dynamics’ (influenced by

both internal and external factors) that tend to have a significant (positive and

negative) impact on the implementation strategy and overall delivery process of

change. These influencing factors include:


- 4 -

• underestimating costs;

• fear of over investment;

• limited pre- and post-delivery support (help desk etc.);

• unskilled and inadequate resources (funds, people, tools, infrastructure etc.);

• employee, client, senior manager and other key stakeholder resistance - due to

their:

o lack of awareness, knowledge, experience and understanding;

o inability to realise the potential opportunities;

o failure to realise the potential misfortunes from not changing or being more

innovative Fujitsu Centre (1998) White and Bruton (2007, 16-165, 243-57,

393) and Williams et al. (1993, xi-15).

Initial findings suggest that when attempting to overcome some of these

challenges, the efficiency and accuracy of, for example, choosing the correct

implementation strategy; securing and assigning sufficient resources; identifying

effective tasks and realistic goals; and prioritising actions, may have a noteworthy

impact on the successful delivery of innovative change within an organisation.

1.1.4. Need for Cultural Change

Research by Robbins (1998, 138-86, 347, 595-98, 601-46) on culture and the

need for change, confirms that many organisations decide to change their

existing culture in order to deliver strategy-driven change (usually to alleviate a

crisis or to realise an opportunity). This notion of ‘adapting cultures’ for success is

supported by Black and Gregersen (2002, 20-86), stating ‘since an organisation’s

success or failure is essentially due to the things that its employees do or fail to

do … planned change also is concerned with changing the behaviour of

individuals and groups within the organisation’. Further, many organisations are

driven to undergo change due to being faced with certain business demands

(Section 1.1.1), which inevitably result in the need to change or adapt an existing

culture or subculture to help meet these new demands. Unfortunately, many


- 5 -

organisations still fail to realise the need for change (sometimes with significant

consequences).

The following extracts from McDermott and O'Dell (2001, 76-77) suggest that

‘realisation’ precedes ‘action’, where convincing people of the need for change is

easier said than done. This is due to not seeing even obvious threats and

opportunities and being ‘blinded’ by the way ‘things’ have always been done.

‘If people fail to see the need for change (whether threat or opportunity

driving it), they will not change… ’

‘If you do not see a truck racing towards you, you are unlikely to jump out

of the way… ’

‘If you do not realise that you are standing on a treasure of gold, you are

unlikely to bend down and pick it up… ’

White and Bruton (2007, 16-165, 243-57, 393) agree that culture plays an

important role in the success of delivering change. They state that the effective

delivery and use of new solutions, well-designed frameworks, and innovative

initiatives tend to fail within organisations due to senior managers, project

leaders, employees and team members (subcultures):

• not supporting the delivery process;

• telling themselves that ‘this too will blow over’; or

• simply denying that the delivery of change can be beneficial.

Founded on the above, recognising and better understanding the relationship

between delivering innovative change within an organisation and that of its

existing culture and subcultures, may be pivotal to the success of that delivery.

1.1.5. Proficient Leadership

White and Bruton (2007, 16-165, 243-57, 393) confirm the delivery of change

relies on the human intervention of those who lead and manage the delivery


- 6 -

process; that is, proficient leaders who can provide and promote the mutual

assurance that the delivery of change within an organisation can be successful.

‘The ultimate test for a leader is not whether he or she makes smart

decisions and takes decisive action, but whether he or she teaches others

to be leaders and builds an organisation that can sustain its success even

when he or she is not around.’ Tichy (2001)

When the culture or subcultures of an organisation are deemed dysfunctional or

employees feel threatened by the delivery of change, Schein (1997, 12-15, 299)

states that it is the role of enhanced leadership that has to manage both the

functional and dysfunctional elements of the existing culture in such a way that

the organisation and its employees survive the delivery process.

‘Culture and leadership are two sides of the same coin.’

O'Donaghue (2001)

Engaging proficient leaders throughout the delivery and application of innovative

change within an organisation may therefore be considered essential due to, for

example, their ability to use their wealth of knowledge, experience, and skill sets

to encourage and engage other key stakeholders to contribute and share their

knowledge, expertise and skill sets in order to achieve required outcomes.

1.1.6. Enhanced Training and Education

According to Foresight (2000), employees ultimately determine an organisation’s

overall level of efficiency and profitability (or lack thereof). White and Bruton

(2007, 16-165, 243-57, 393) for example, identifies a number of potential benefits

that can be gained from improving the skill sets and knowledge of employees

through the facilitation of improved training and education, including:

• educated employees tend to engender more successful firms;


- 7 -

• higher industry standards and improved employment prospects can be

achieved;

• skilled employees promote a healthier, happier and enhanced image for the

construction industry;

• an improved image of the industry in turn may encourage enhanced R&D

efforts to fuel long-term economic gains and potentially stimulate the creation

of and uptake of innovative solutions and better ideas; and

• organisations tend to become more flexible through the use of multi-skilled

employees, inevitably imposing a high-tech / innovative image with the

potential of delivering improved social benefits, attracting more skilled people,

and making the construction industry (as a whole) more attractive as a career

choice for younger generations.

Furthermore, Andrews and Allen (2002) state that organisations are unable to

fully adapt to a changing environment if their employees do not have access to

appropriate (internal or external) training and education programs, facilities etc.

for them to gain the necessary information and know-how to effectively operate

within these new environments. Supported in Davidson (2009), employees are

often spoken of as an organisation’s most valuable resource, and investing in

enhanced training and education programs to develop an employee’s knowledge

and skill sets on how best to apply and use innovative change, may be seen as a

logical and value-adding endeavour for an organisation.

1.1.7. Link To Research

Preliminary findings from reviewing the literature from various perspectives

(dynamics) confirm that there are many significant barriers, challenges tasks,

needs, threats, and opportunities (factors) underpinning each of these. Although

literature suggests these dynamics and factors can influence (both positively and

negatively) the delivery and application of a ‘new or improved way of doing

something’ (innovative change) within an organisation, it provided little evidence


- 8 -

of a comprehensive decision-making method, model or framework for better

measuring (rating) and managing these.

1.2. Hypothesis and Research Question

Based on the background literature, six quantifiable decision-making dynamics

were identified - Change, Innovation, Implementation, Culture, Leadership, and

Training and Education. The outcomes of rating their relevance (in terms of being

key components of a CDF) will assist in making more informed, unbiased and

value-adding decisions on the various tasks, resources, methods, and processes

associated to the delivery of innovative change in organisations. To achieve this,

the following research hypothesis was established (Figure 1.1): ‘Six decision-

making dynamics are necessary when delivering innovative change within an

organisation: Change, Innovation, Implementation, Culture, Leadership, and

Training and Education.’

Figure 1-1: Six Decision-making Dynamics

IMPLEMENTATION

CHANGE

INNOVATION

CULTURE

TRAINING AND

EDUCATION

LEADERSHIP

‘SIX DECISION-

MAKING DYNAMICS - NECESSARY WHEN

DELIVERING INNOVATIVE CHANGE

WITHIN AN ORGANISATION’

2

1

3

6

5

4


- 9 -

The overarching question posed to further explore the research hypothesis was:

‘What additional decision-making dynamics are necessary when delivering

innovative change within an organisation?’

1.3. Research Aim

The primary aim was to underline the need for organisations to recognise the

various challenges and opportunities that may influence the delivery and

application of innovative change; to develop these ‘influences’ into quantifiable

dynamics; and finally to promote these as key components of a CDF for

delivering innovative change within organisations.

1.4. Research Objective

The main research objectives were:

• Firstly: to test the research hypothesis

• Secondly: to provide a response to the overarching research question

The first objective was achieved by undertaking a:

• Literature Review;

• Delphi study on six decision-making dynamics — Change, Innovation,

Implementation, Culture, Leadership, and Training and Education; followed by

• quantifying (rating) the six dynamics to determine their relevancy as key

components of a CDF, that is, by establishing what ‘influence’ they may (or

may not) have on the delivery of innovative change in an organisation.

The second of the above objectives was achieved by identifying any additional

dynamics (other than the above six), and then to rate these to determine their

relevancy as key components of the proposed CDF.


- 10 -

To follow is a detailed account of the above research activities.

1.5. Research Approach

Following the 2004 Background Literature Review, published research spanning

four decades was reviewed between 2007 and 2008 in relation to six dynamics,

hypothesised as being key components of a CDF for delivering innovative

change within an organisation (Chapter Two):

• Change: Investigating the act and need for change itself, including the

intricacies, drivers and associated barriers (Section 3.2.1);

• Innovation: Exploring the various types, drivers, challenges, myths and realities

of innovation (Section 2.2.2);

• Implementation: Examining various implementation strategies, processes,

barriers and challenges that may need to be considered when delivering

sustainable innovative change (Section 2.2.3);

• Culture: Exploring the embedded culture and subculture types, personalities,

characteristics, threats and opportunities that may challenge the successful

and sustainable delivery of innovative change within today’s highly competitive

construction industry organisation (Section 2.2.4);

• Leadership: Investigating the challenges, requirements etc. of leading or

championing the sustainable delivery of innovative change (Section 2.2.5)

• Training and Education: Exploring various factors and challenges associated

with the facilitation of both internal and external training and education

environments, platforms, incentives etc.; and the need for these to be (or not

to be) attuned / aligned with every end user’s (key stakeholders) expectations,

limitations, strengths, history, past experiences etc.; that is, with regards to an

end user’s proficiency in:

o engaging with / understanding the new innovative change knowledge,

information and experiences presented to them; and

o effectively applying this newly attained innovative change know-how within

their current and / or future work environments (Section 2.2.6).


- 11 -

To determine if the above six dynamics were key components of the CDF, six

sets of relevant factors (issues, keywords, notes, recommendations, phrases,

trends, concepts etc.) were identified from the Background and second (more

extensive) Literature Review for each dynamic. These factors (discussed in

greater detail in Chapter Three) were then rephrased as both closed and open-

ended questions, statements etc., which could then be used in a survey

questionnaire to:

• clarify, better define and enhance the context of the six dynamics (in terms of

the research aim and objectives); and

• allow for a panel of building and construction industry experts to more

accurately rate the relevancy of the six hypothesised dynamics as key

components of a CDF.

A number of approaches and methodologies were investigated (Chapters Four

and Five). Outcomes from this investigation identified a Delphi Study — using the

Delphi Technique — as the most appropriate data collection, analysis and

verification process (Chapter Five), due to it being:

• a recognised, cost-effective, time-efficient, simple yet effective surveying

method to anonymously collect and analyse a set of ‘opinion-based’ responses

from a panel of geographically dispersed building and construction industry

members with diverse backgrounds, experiences, and knowledge. According

to Sharp (c1997), the size of the expert panel can be anything from five to

several hundred participants.

• designed to reach a consensus in responses to a set of ‘non-emotionally-

charged’ research questions, statements etc. (factors); and

• a confidential process that was non-confrontational, unbiased and engaging

(user-friendly) Youngblood (2000).

Fifteen building and construction industry members were invited to take part in

this research in June 2008 (Chapter Five). Of these, nine agreed to form a panel

and participate in a four-month Delphic study (August–November 2008). All nine

industry members had senior positions (manager and above) within a recognised


- 12 -

field or occupation, with various levels of experience, understanding and / or

knowledge in the process of delivering change within organisations.

The Delphi Survey Questionnaire was designed and developed in June 2008. Its

format was tested in July 2008 through consultation with research specialists,

research panel members and professional editors. All comments (regarding

relevancy of survey questions, statements, grammar, distribution method,

ambiguities, user-friendliness etc.) were incorporated into the revision and

improvement of the Delphi Survey Questionnaire. Once completed to the

satisfaction of those involved in the test, the first Delphi Survey Questionnaire

was approved for distribution.

The first round of Delphi Survey Questionnaires was distributed to the panel in

August 2008. In addition to rating the relevancy of the six dynamics, panel

members were asked to identify and validate the relevancy of any additional

dynamics they believed were key components of a CDF. Round-one responses

were returned in early September 2008, analysed and documented. Any

additional dynamics and / or related factors identified by the panel were added to

the first six, and then used to populate the second Delphi Survey Questionnaire.

The second Delphi Survey questionnaire was distributed to the same nine panel

members in October 2008, where they were asked to confirm their first round

responses as well as rate any additional dynamics or factors. Round-two

responses were returned in November 2008, then analysed and summarised in

December 2009 (Chapters Seven and Eight). For a summary of these research

activities refer to Figure 1-2 and Table 1-1.


- 13 -

Figure 1-2: Research Activities Snapshot

June / July 2008

Electronic Version (Excel / PDF)

June 2008

Nine senior members construction industry: 1. Experienced /

knowledgeable in tprocess of deliverinchange; and

2. Who agreed to par

in a Delphic Studycomplete the variorounds of the DelphQuestionnaire

RESEARCH ACTIVITIES

‘SNAPSHOT’

Research Aim &

Objectives

Undertake Second

(More In-depth) Literature Review

Develop Research Questions

Distribute Delphi Survey Questionnaire

Identify Panel of Industry

Experts

Confirm Research

Methodology

Analyse /Summarise

Delphi Survey Questionnaire

Results

Final Research Results / Findings

Future Research

Proposals, Discussion & Conclusions

1

INPUTS

Prepare / Test Delphi

Survey Questionnaire

June 2008

The Delphi Technique

August - December 2008

Data collection, analysis, and verification process was done electronically (Excel) after each of the rounds until all participants reached a consensus in their responses and ratings for the various decision-making dynamics and associated factors presented in the Delphi Survey

Questionnaire

2004 & 2007 - 2008

Four decades of literature was reviewed

on six decision-making dynamics

hypothesised as being key components of a

‘Decision-making Framework’

for delivering innovative change within an

organisation.

September 2009

Final Thesis

7

6

42

5

August - November 2008

Two rounds By mail and email (PDF)

2004 & 2007 - 2008

Research further identified relevant / related / acknowledged / supporting factors

(issues; key words; notes; recommendations; phrases; trends; concepts; etc.)

from the Background and second Literature Review for each of the six hypothesised decision-making dynamics.

These factors were then converted / rephrased as both closed and open-ended questions for further analysis.

3

2004

1. Background Literature Review

To determine Research Link / Gap

2. Hypothesis:

‘The following six decision-making dynamics are necessary when delivering innovative change within an organisation: Change; Innovation; Implementation; Culture; Leadership; and Training and Education.’

3. Research Question:

‘What additional decision-making dynamics are necessary when delivering innovative change within an organisation?’

November 2008 – August 2009

Research identifies a range of decision-making dynamics as key components of a ‘Decision-making Framework’ for delivering innovative change within a

construction industry organisation

RESEARCH OUTPUT 2 OUTPUTS

RESEARCH INPUTS

8

10

INPUTS

INPUTS

RESEARCH OUTPUT 1

9

NOTE: • Steps one to nine are also reflected in the Eleven Step Delphi Process (Chapter Five) • The three year research ‘gap’ between 2004 and 2007(Steps one and two) was due to the author’s work

commitments taking precedence during that time.

June / July 2008

Electronic Version (Excel / PDF)

June 2008

Nine senior members of the construction industry: 1. Experienced /

knowledgeable in the process of delivering change; and

2. Who agreed to participate

in a Delphic Study and complete the various rounds of the Delphi Survey Questionnaire


- 14 -

Table 1-1: Key to Figure 1-2

ACTIVITY (STEPS 1-10) RESEARCH PROCESS

1. RESEARCH INPUTS

(2004)

• An initial investigation (Background Literature Review) was undertaken

to:

o identify some of the internal and external influence (challenges,

issues, factors etc.) of delivering innovative change in organisations

o determine / identify any research gaps.

• Based on the above outcomes a Research Hypothesis was proposed:

‘Six decision-making dynamics are necessary when delivering innovative

change within an organisation: Change; Innovation; Implementation;

Culture; Leadership; and Training and Education’

• In support of the research hypothesis the following overarching

Research Question was established: ‘What additional decision-making

dynamics are necessary when delivering innovative change within an

organisation?’

2. SECOND LITERATURE REVIEW

(2004 & 2007-2008)

• The second (more in-depth) Literature Review (Chapter Two) was a key

undertaking to provide more rigorous evidence to:

o support the initial findings of the background literature;

o test the research hypothesis and overarching question;

o gain a better understanding of current international practices,

initiatives, undertakings etc. pertaining to the six hypothesised

decision-making dynamics ; and

o provide relevant information for the development of the Delphi

Survey Questionnaire (Chapter Five)

3. DEVELOP RESEARCH QUESTIONS

(2004 & 2007-2008)

• To further clarify, better define, and enhance the context of the six

hypothesised dynamics:

o Relevant factors (issues, keywords, notes, recommendations,

phrases, trends, concepts etc.) were identified from the Background

and second Literature Review for each of the six dynamics

(Chapter Three).

o These factors were then rephrased as closed and open-ended

questions, statements etc. for further analysis (rating).

4. CONFIRM RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

(Jun 2008)

• A number of methodologies were considered (Chapters Four and Five).

• Outcomes from this investigation identified a Delphi Study - using the

Delphi Technique as being the most appropriate data collection, analysis

and verification process (Chapter Five)

(Continue onto next page)


- 15 -

ACTIVITY (STEPS 1-10) RESEARCH PROCESS

5. PREPARE AND TEST DELPHI SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

(Jun / Jul 2008)

• The first round Delphi Survey Questionnaire was designed and

developed to allow a panel of building and construction industry experts

(Step 6) to rate the relevancy of six hypothesised dynamics (in terms of

being key components of a CDF) - Change, Innovation, Implementation,

Culture, Leadership, and Training and Education (Step 3).

o The format and contents of the first Delphi Survey Questionnaire was

tested through consultation with research specialists, industry

members and professional editors.

o All comments (regarding relevancy of survey questions, statements,

grammar, distribution method; ambiguities, user-friendliness etc.)

were considered and incorporated into the revision and

improvement of the Questionnaire.

o Only once the above was completed to the satisfaction of those

involved in the test, was the first Questionnaire approved for

distribution.

6. IDENTIFY PANEL MEMBERS

(Jun 2008)

• Building and construction industry members had to have senior positions

(manager and above) within a recognised field or occupation, with

experience, understanding and / or knowledge in the process of

delivering change within organisations.

• Of the 15 industry members invited to take part in this research, nine

agreed to form a panel and participate in the four month Delphi study

(Chapter Five).

7. DISTRIBUTE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

(Aug - Nov 2008)

• Two rounds of the Delphi Survey Questionnaire were distributed

(independently and confidentially) to each panel member by way of mail

and email.

8. ANALYSE AND SUMMARISE RESULTS

(Aug - Dec 2008)

• Each round of survey responses and supporting comments were

analysed, tabulated, transcribed and summarised (Chapter Six).

o Any additional decision-making dynamics and / or relative factors

identified by the panel were rephrased as closed and open-ended

questions, statements etc. and then used to populate round two of

the Delphi Survey Questionnaire.

• Steps Seven and Eight were to be repeated (if required) until panel

members reached a consensus in their responses for the various

dynamics and associated factors provided in the questionnaires.

9. DOCUMENT FINAL RESULTS / FINDINGS

(Nov 2008 – Aug 2009)

• The final results of the Delphi Survey Questionnaire are presented in

Chapters Six and Seven.

10. FUTURE RESEARCH AND CONCLUSION

(Nov 2008 – Aug 2009)

• Conclusions and future research proposals are presented in Chapter

Eight.


- 16 -

1.6. Research Contribution

First, research outcomes will validate (rate) the relevancy of certain dynamics as

being key components of a CDF. Second, research outcomes will show how

these dynamics can more accurately determine an organisation’s level of

‘readiness’ / ability to:

• deliver innovative change within an organisation; and

• realise the potential benefits the successful delivery and application of

innovative change can offer, such as reducing or omitting certain inefficiencies,

increasing overall competitiveness, supporting new business opportunities,

meeting client expectations, responding to market trends, or improving overall

performances.

Finally, as this research is committed and limited to meeting the above research

contributions, to further enhance the delivery and application of innovative

change within an organisation, the above contributions also form the foundation

of the proposed future R&D, testing, and case-study analysis of an ‘Innovative

Change Delivery Process’ (ICDP), underpinned by an ‘Innovative Change

Decision-making Framework’ (ICDF), a ‘Innovative Change Delivery Analysis’

(ICDA), and finally a ‘Innovative Change Delivery Guide’ (ICDG) (Chapter Eight).

Projected outcomes from the these research proposals will provide construction

industry leaders, clients and other key stakeholders unrestricted yet secure

access to, for example, supplementary support mechanisms; innovative change

knowledge and sharing platforms; good-practice guidelines; relevant (successful

as well as unsuccessful) case study projects (illustrating the application principles

of delivering innovative change); tried-and-tested decision-making processes,

frameworks, models, and recommendations; ‘Stop-and-Check innovative change

indicators’; delivery ‘dos’ and ‘don’ts’; as well as access to internationally

recognised innovative change specialists (using an up-to-date

communication/networking platform).


- 17 -

1.7. Thesis Structure

Following this chapter - in line with the research activities outlined in Section 1.5:

• Chapter Two: documents the findings of the second Literature Review, a

more in-depth investigation into the six dynamics that were hypothesised as

being key components of a CDF.

• Chapter Three: identifies relevant factors from the Background and second

(more extensive) Literature Review for each of the six hypothesised

dynamics.

• Chapter Four: identifies a number of research types and methods considered,

including details of the surveying style of research and highlighting the various

strengths, weaknesses, advantages and disadvantages in using a survey

approach; and providing a ten-step guide on how to develop and distribute a

standard survey instrument. The strengths and weaknesses of employing

both a qualitative and quantitative research approach (triangulation) are also

discussed.

• Chapter Five: identifies the Delphi Technique as the most appropriate data

collection and verification process by providing a background and an outline

of the Delphi Technique Process; discusses the development of the Delphi

Survey Questionnaires, and introduces the building and construction industry

panel members who agreed to take part in the Delphi study.

• Chapter Six: discusses the distribution, collation and final analysis of the data

received from the two rounds of the Delphi Survey Questionnaires.

• Chapter Seven: presents the proposed CDF.

• Chapter Eight: discusses and concludes this thesis, presents future research

opportunities and suggests the supplementary R&D, testing and analyse of a

comprehensive ICDF and an ICDA program — both housed within an ICDP.

• Finally a Reference list and an Appendix conclude this thesis.


- 18 -

1.8. Summary: Chapter One

This chapter reviewed and provides a snapshot of over a decade of literature

from six different perspectives (dynamics): Change, Innovation, Implementation,

Culture, Leadership, and Training and Education – where various barriers,

challenges, tasks, needs, threats, opportunities etc. for each were identified as

factors that ‘influence’ the delivery of innovative change in organisations.

Preliminary findings also suggest the complex decision-making process and

difficulty in managing the various tasks, resources, methods, and processes etc.,

associated to the delivery of change is not uncommon. That although achieving

long-term efficiencies may, for example be the main objective of an organisation,

these enhancements may be short-lived if the organisation (as a whole) has a

short-term or ‘quick-fix’ mindset; or if it relies on unsubstantiated, biased,

unrealistic or superficial decision-making practices.

Research also found insufficient evidence of a comprehensive decision-making

framework that incorporates and measures the relevancy or level of influence the

above six dynamics may (or may not) have on the decision-making process for

delivering innovative change in organisations.

As a result research set out to develop, quantify (rate), and test the relevancy of

the above six (and any additional) dynamics, that is, in terms of being key

‘decision-making dynamics’ of a CDF for the delivery of innovative change in

construction industry organisations. Projected outcomes were twofold. Firstly, to

establish what ‘influence’ these dynamics may (or may not) have on the delivery

of innovative change in an organisation. Secondly, to assist organisations in

making more informed, unbiased, and value-adding decisions pertaining to the

various tasks, resources, methods, processes, recommendations etc. when

delivering innovative change. To satisfy the projected outcomes required a more

comprehensive Literature Review for each of the six hypothesised decision-

making dynamics and their underlying factors. These findings are presented in

Chapter Two.

Chapter Two – Literature Review

- 19 -

2. CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

The initial findings from the Background Literature Review prompted a more

comprehensive Literature Review of the six hypothesised decision-making

dynamics as outlined in this chapter.

2.1. Change

The first dynamic to consider when delivering innovative change in an

organisation, is the act of change itself. The construction industry is one of the

most important industries in any developed country and at a critical point in its

history, with many ‘divides’ being created, and moving it in new directions, for

example:

• towards an enhanced knowledge awareness and sharing philosophy —

‘knowledge is power’;

• from promoting not only a local, but also a global business and marketing

philosophy;

• moving away from having a management-only approach to promoting an

overall and effective leadership and culture change philosophy; and

• from being a generally reactive industry to having a more proactive mindset —

becoming leaders rather than followers in meeting the competitive demands of

the industry.

The background literature confirms that today’s organisations are increasingly

aware of the potential barriers and perceived challenges associated with the

successful delivery of change; including financial constraints, restricted timelines,


- 20 -

insufficient senior management support and fragmented key stakeholder

commitment.

The following sections review a number of change factors (issues, drivers,

challenges etc.), as well as discuss a number of approaches on how construction

industry stakeholders may overcome resistances encountered when delivering

innovative change within organisations.

2.1.1. Disruptive Events

Researchers Cooper (1999) and Michel (1998) agree that at the beginning of the

20th century, the industrial era was born through a ‘quantum shift’ — moving it

from an agricultural to an industrial economy. As a result, original ways of

working and techniques for managing complex organisations and projects had to

be changed; inspiring need for improving the efficiencies of mass production

tools, processes and classic / traditional management techniques.

Seven examples of disruptive events experienced by today’s construction

industry stakeholders (Table 2-1) show a variety of internal and external impacts

and challenges facing today’s construction industry organisations, forcing them to

continuously find new and innovative ways of better managing and exploiting

their intellectual assets (knowledge and experiences).


- 21 -

Table 2-1: Disruptive Events Causing a ‘Quantum Shift’ in Change

DISRUPTIVE EVENTS

EXPERIENCED BY CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY STAKEHOLDERS

Hectic Pace • According to Kajewski et al. (2003a) this includes the acceleration of new process

innovations and product introductions, the shortening of product life cycles, the

emergence of new industries, difficulties in maintaining success, and changes in

culture and ‘attitudes’ to continuous improvement - from ‘don’t fix it if it isn’t broke’ to

‘will fix it even if it ain’t broke’.

• Where chances are that if you have been doing ‘it’ (the use of, for example an

outdated or redundant tool, process, system, strategy) the same way for the past 20

years, chances are you are not doing ‘it’ right anymore.

Increased Productivity

• Whereby more work can be done in less time, with the cost of time possibly going up

as a result.

• Mistakes are likely to get costly too with the demand for higher quality and ‘zero

defects’ being on the increase, and traditional key stakeholder relationships

changing.

• Clients demand fast turn-around times, while consultants and contractors compete

among themselves for creative designs and better quality products.

Legal Infrastructure

• Weippert et al. (2002, 103-16), Weippert and Kajewski (2009, 319-38) and Hee

(1998) highlight new legal ‘cyberspace’ standards, issues and how meanings are

coming into play for virtual business; including electronic signatures, tenders, time

stamping, validation, intellectual property, privacy, and jurisdiction.

Power of Knowledge

• Where for example training and education (Section 2.2.6) is incorporated into the

process of delivering innovative change, Kajewski et al. (2003b) suggests the

workforce of the construction industry will need to fully embrace the innovative ideas

of on-the-job education, continuing education, and part-time graduate study.

• Weippert and Kajewski (2008b) and Davies et al. (2005, 175) indicate that the loss of

knowledge is caused as a result of, for example increased employee turnover rate

and a more mobile workforce.

• Thereby suggesting enhanced efforts in improving current training and education

platforms; further developing effective knowledge management (KM) frameworks,

processes and applications; and promoting knowledge-sharing initiatives to facilitate

lifelong learning and improved efficiencies on future applications.

Globalisation • Kajewski et al. (2003a, , Kajewski et al. (2003b) predicts globalisation will result in

people increasingly being required to collaborate and exchange valuable knowledge,

experiences, and other value-adding resources across continents and time zones.



- 22 -

DISRUPTIVE EVENTS

EXPERIENCED BY CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY STAKEHOLDERS

Creative Destruction

• In Flanagan (1998) this tends to be caused by the inevitable and ever-increasing

competitive demand for employing innovative change such as the internet, new and

improved hand-held technologies etc., which enable industry participants to bypass

many traditional business functions.

• Many ‘reinventing-the-wheel’ type functions are also becoming obsolete. This

demise of certain business and project functions may give further rise to uneasiness

and resistance towards the delivery of innovative change, yet this phenomenon

should perhaps be viewed as ‘creative destruction,’ since new and better ways of

doing business are replacing old and redundant ones.

Echoed in Robbins (1998, 138-86, 347, 595-98, 601-46), to help organisations

overcome similar challenges to those mentioned above and to become more

competitive within their relative industry sectors, the first step for stakeholder

leaders to take is to realise the need for change itself. This notion is supported in

Black and Gregersen (2002, 20-86):

‘Competition is changing… the global economy means that competitors are as

likely to come from across the ocean… as from across town… successful

organisations will be the ones that can change in response to that competition’.

Findings therefore suggest, ignoring the disruptive force factors of change when

attempting to; for example, enhance overall efficiencies; improve levels of

productivity; or secure future sought-after projects can have a detrimental effect

on the long-term survival and competitive advantage of construction industry

organisations.

2.1.2. Cost, Timing and Difficulty of Change

The timing of delivering innovative change in an organisation may also determine

the success or failure of that delivery. Black and Gregersen (2002, 20-86) for

example have identified three ‘tactics’ to help determine a timelier and more cost-

effective delivery strategy. This indicates the difficulty and cost of delaying the


- 23 -

delivery of change over time, which may in many cases not only be

‘inconvenient’, but also ‘catastrophic’ (Figure 2-1).

Adapted from Black and Gregersen (2002, 20-86)

Figure 2-1: Difficulty and Cost of Change

A brief explanation by Black and Gregersen (2002, 20-86) for each of the above

three change tactics (anticipatory, reactive and crisis change) follows:

• Anticipatory Change: the most difficult of the three approaches to start and

finish due to the difficulty in sensing future threats and opportunities, and what

unpredictable course they may take. Anticipatory change requires

organisations to look ahead and predict change in advance (anticipating the

need for change). Managers tend to avoid this process due to the unknown

Least

Moderate

Most ANTICIPATORY Change

REACTIVE Change

CRISIS Change

Time

Cost

REACTIVE Change

CRISIS Change

Most Difficult

Difficult

Easiest Time

Difficulty

ANTICIPATORY Change

A

B


- 24 -

return on investments it generates. However, if executed correctly, this change

tactic can present the greatest potential benefits and lowest costs. When

change involves steep and ongoing learning, then the sooner an organisation

starts changing, the greater its advantage will be over slower-to-change

competitors (Figure 2-2).

Adapted from Black and Gregersen (2002, 20-86)

Figure 2-2: Competitive Advantage

• Reactive Change: Referred to by Black and Gregersen (2002, 20-86) as the

most common approach adopted by organisations. Davidson (2010) believes

that most changes are reactive, including the perception of the need for

change. In this case organisations tend to react to the obvious signs and

signals that change is needed by; for example, observing customers, clients,

competitors, key shareholders and employees. It is described as slightly easier

to get under way than anticipatory change, and less costly than crisis change

(below). This is due to a more certain change opportunity being identified

before the organisation’s survival becomes a critical factor in the decision-

making process. Organisations with a reasonable level of ‘agility’ to change at

short notice - that is, as a ‘quick second mover’ rather than a ‘slow first mover’

- may therefore benefit greatly by their timely response to the delivery and

application of innovative change.

Com

petit

or

Your Organisation Minimal

Competitive Advantage

0 Yr1 Yr2 Yr3

AFTER ONE YEAR

Com

petit

or

Significant Competitive

Advantage & Distance

0 Yr1 Yr2 Yr3

AFTER TWO YEARS

Your Organisation


- 25 -

• Crisis Change: Although referred to by Grenier and Metes (1995, xv, 320) as

the easiest type of change, it tends to be more costly which may; for example,

affect shareholder and customer value, or generate job insecurity. This form of

change occurs when signs and signals to change have multiplied and

intensified to the point where the organisation can deny them no longer. This

form of change also occurs when the need or opportunity for change has been

ignored for too long and when competitors have already begun to change. In

this case, the longer an organisation ignores this need or opportunity for

change, the less their chances are of survival or gaining a competitive edge.

2.1.3. Drivers of Change

Although there may be numerous internal and external driving and motivational

forces that may help deliver long-term change in today’s competitive and ever-

changing construction industry environment; such as economical, legal,

technological and political factors, there are no quick fixes. This section examines

the needs, threats and opportunities that tend to drive and motivate construction

industry organisations to deliver and apply change.

2.1.3.1. Influencing Realities

The following influencing factors are identified by Flanagan (1998) and Robbins

(1998, 138-86, 347, 595-98, 601-46) as drivers of change within construction

industry organisations:

• trends towards global business (globalisation and increased competition);

• breakthroughs in technologies that have empowered users to work remotely

from their workplace (technology, knowledge and skills);

• changes in personal lifestyles that make non-traditional work process more

acceptable (demographic trends);

• sophisticated, well-informed and increased demands of clients;


- 26 -

• increased complexity and decreasing time pressures (pace of economic

change);

• new employment patterns, organisational structures and changing clientele;

and

• the growing importance of environmental issues and pressure groups.

2.1.3.2. Motivation

Research identified motivation as the first driver for delivering change within an

organisation, defined by Schein (1999, 13-14) as ‘the willingness to exert high

levels of effort toward organisational goals, conditioned by the effort’s ability to

satisfy some individual need’ - comprising three key elements of need:

• Effort: A measure of intensity, where the more one is motivated, the more effort

is relayed back into one’s job or role;

• Organisational Goal: For the organisation to fully benefit from the high levels of

effort, it must ensure enhanced levels of job-performance are channelled

directly towards and consistent with the organisation’s overall goals and

objectives; as well as consider the quality of their efforts as well as their levels

of intensity; and

• Employee’s Opinion: About the outcome of an effort (in meeting an

organisational goal or objective); and making it appear either attractive or

worth doing for themselves.

It could therefore be feasible for organisations to consider all three motivational

elements when attempting to convince senior managers, employees and other

key stakeholders to accept the delivery and application of innovative change

within their current or future work environments.


- 27 -

2.1.3.3. Threats and Opportunities

Threats and opportunities (both actual and perceived) are identified by Whyte

(2002, 160) as drivers for delivering change. That for change to occur within an

organisation, there may inevitably be some sense of threat, disruptive event

(Section 2.1.1), crisis, or dissatisfaction present in which the original way of

‘doing things’ (which usually confronts or challenges the proposed change) will

have to be ‘unlearned’ before the new or improved way of ‘doing things’ can be

learned (Section 2.4.4.1). Employees will also try to maintain a state of

equilibrium within their work environment by consciously and in many cases

subconsciously challenging certain types of change that may upset this

equilibrium state.

Schein (1999, 13-14) maintains it is also worth noting that both real and

perceived threats and opportunities tend to vary from one organisation to

another, where certain key threats and opportunities are better or worse for one

but not the other. Further emphasising the need to identify and acknowledge the

various crisis and opportunity factors that an organisation may face during the

delivery of change.

2.1.3.4. Need Factor: ‘What’s in it for me?’

Another driver for delivering change within an organisation is what this research

refers to as the ‘what’s in it for me?’ factor, where according to Robbins (1998,

138-86, 347, 595-98, 601-46) for example, employees tend to have a compelling

drive to succeed in doing something better than others, or to be more efficient

than before. In this case, the ‘what’s in it for me?’ factor is driven by the need to

satisfy a personal achievement or to receive tangible (financial etc.) / intangible

(recognition etc.) rewards as a result of those achievements.

McClelland’s ‘Theory of Needs’ for example, presented in McClelland (1975) and

McClelland and Burnham (1976, 100-10), identifies three important needs


- 28 -

(achievement, power and affiliation) that represent a higher level of motivation for

employees. These are presented in Figure 2-3 as a set of individual drivers that

reinforce the need for change, where senior management and employees:

• want to excel or succeed in their current and / or future work environment;

• influence others in such a way so that they respond in a positive, proactive and

/ or value-adding manner; and

• forge positive relationships and communication channels among all key

stakeholders.

Created from McClelland (1975)

McClelland and Burnham (1976, 100-10)

Robbins (1998, 138-86, 347, 595-98, 601-46)

Figure 2-3: McClelland’s Theory of Needs

Another ‘needs theory’ is that of Maslow’s ‘Hierarchy of Needs’ presented in

Maslow (1943, 370-96) and Robbins (1998, 138-86, 347, 595-98, 601-46), which

suggests that within every human being there exists a hierarchy of five basic

needs (Figure 2-4). When delivering change within an organisation, employees

will (generally) expect at least one of Maslow’s levels of needs to be substantially

AFFILIATION POWER

THREE MOTIVATIONAL

NEEDS

ACHIEVEMENT

• The need to be able to

make others behave in

a way that they would

not have behaved

otherwise •

• The desire for friendly

and interpersonal

relationships •

• The drive to excel •

• To achieve something in relation to a set of standards •

• To strive to succeed •


- 29 -

satisfied or fulfilled. Employees will inevitably also want to move up Maslow’s five

sequential steps of needs in order to achieve a higher level of satisfaction from a

physiological, financial, safety, social, self-esteem or self-actualisation

perspective.

It is important to note here that ‘motivation’ is different from ‘satisfaction’, and that

Maslow’s theory is a ‘need’ theory rather than a theory of ‘motivation’, Davidson

(2010).

Adapted from Maslow (1943, 370-96)

Robbins (1998, 138-86, 347, 595-98, 601-46)

Figure 2-4: Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

Referring to Figure 2-4, the constant drive for increased levels of satisfaction and

motivation is (generally) a result of either the current need of employees not

being fulfilled or fully gratified, due to for example, an unsatisfactory work

environment; current, traditional or inefficient way ‘things are done’; or when the

need or levels of accomplishment of employees (again from either a

5

4

3

2

1

Highest

Satis

fact

ion

Leve

ls o

f Nee

d

5 Self-Actualisation: The drive to become what

one is capable of becoming; includes growth,

achieving one’s potential, and self-fulfilment.

4 Esteem Factors: (a) internal - self-respect,

autonomy, and achievement; and (b) external -

status, recognition, and attention

3 Social: affection, belongingness, acceptance,

and friendship

2 Safety: security and protection from physical and

emotional harm

1 Physiological: hunger, thirst, shelter, sex, and

other bodily needs

NOTE: As each of the above five sequential

needs becomes substantially satisfied, the next need becomes dominant

Lowest


- 30 -

physiological, safety, social, esteem, or self actualisation standpoint) has been

substantially satisfied. This results in employees seeking additional or higher

levels of motivation and satisfaction from either: their current work environment;

or from the delivery and application of the proposed change.

Findings suggests that recognising and better understanding the five levels of

employee needs; and incorporating these factors into the decision-making

process of delivering innovative change within organisations, may assist in

convincing organisational leaders and employees alike in accepting a new and

improved way of ‘doing things’.

In Black and Gregersen (2002, 20-86), Vroom’s Expectancy Theory suggests

employees tend to exercise an enhanced level of effort towards accepting

change or ‘new ways of doing things’ when they believe that their increased

efforts will lead to a positive performance appraisal; or that an appraisal will

subsequently lead to receiving tangible and intangible rewards such as a

personal recognition, bonuses, salary increases, or promotions — all of which

satisfy their personal goals.

2.1.3.5. Rewarding Change Efforts

As indicated in Grisham and Walker (2006, 217-31), it is not uncommon for

people to continue resisting change, even if an understanding of the new

‘destination’ or future way of ‘doing things’ is clear. This is because the new

destination must not only be seen, but must also be believed by those who may

be influenced (positively or negatively) by the delivery of change. There are three

basic steps that may help employees overcome any uncertainties; and move

them towards accepting change (Figure 2-5).

Organisations are to understand what motivates their employees before they can

correctly identify the most appropriate form of reward. This notion is supported by

Rollett (2003, i-xii, 65-66, 209-29) and Black and Gregersen (2002, 20-86) who


- 31 -

agree tangible and intangible reward options are endless (Section 2.4.5.3.3),

bound only by the imagination of an organisation.

Created from Black and Gregersen (2002, 20-86)

Figure 2-5:Expectancy Theory

It can therefore be argued that rewards must be contingent on performance and

must be of value to its recipient.

The ‘ARCTIC’ approach in Rethinking Construction (2000) for example,

comprises five major categories of motivational values and needs that may help

determine the most appropriate rewards for employees (Table 2-2):

CLEAR DESTINATION

SECURE RESOURCES

REWARD EFFORTS

STEP 1

STEP 2

STEP 3

Change leaders provide a clear description and understanding of

the proposed final ‘destination’. If unclear to individuals who may

be affected by the change, then the motivation for them to move

forward is minimal. Employees might also resist the above,

because the ‘destination’ is too clear.

Once the direction is clear in the employees’ mind, change

leaders are to convince them that they have what it takes to

reach the newly proposed destination. Once convinced, they

are likely to accept the change, but if not fully convinced,

they may not move forward at this critical juncture. Change

leaders must provide their employees with the required

resources (skills, frameworks, processes, knowledge, tools,

manpower, etc.) – which may include the facilitation and

undertaking of training, education, mentoring and coaching

(Section 2.2.6) to help generate the essential capabilities and

knowledge required to master the new ways of ‘doing things’.

People will only be motivated to move forward and

readily accept change, if they believe their efforts

will, in one form or another, be rewarded – ‘what’s

in it for me?’. Contrary to many beliefs, even

though money may be perceived as one of the

more powerful reward mechanisms, it is not the

only incentive employees seek.


- 32 -

Table 2-2: The ARCTIC Approach for Determining Rewards

ARCTIC APPROACH RELATED MOTIVATIONAL DRIVERS (NEEDS)

Achievement • Accomplishment: To meet or beat goals or to do better in the future than one

has done in the past.

• Competition: To compare one’s performance with others — to do better.

Relations • Approval: To be appreciated and recognised by others.

• Belonging: To feel part of and accepted by the group.

Conceptual thinking • Problem solving: To confront problems and create answers.

• Coordination: To relate pieces and integrate them into one.

Improvement • Growth: To feel continued improvement and growth as a person, not just

improved results.

• Exploration: To move into unknown territory for discovery.

Control • Competence: To feel personally capable and competent.

• Influence: To influence opinions and actions of others.

2.1.3.6. Respecting People

Rethinking Construction (2000) confirms the failure of certain leading

organisations respecting their employees has the potential to cause irreparable

damage to their bottom line. Further stating that the ‘gap’ in levels of respect

between operatives (blue-collar workers), compared to white-collar workers

(management and above), was potentially most damaging of all.

According to Rethinking Construction, one of the more urgent business

challenges facing today’s construction industry organisations, is the ability to

ensure employees are motivated through enhanced levels of respect. Failing to

do so may result in organisations being unsuccessful in attracting, recruiting and

retaining the best employees, business partners and key stakeholders that are

required for the successful delivery of change. Furthermore, both large and small

construction industry organisations who promote enhanced levels of respect and

commitment toward all their employees and the extended supply chain of

specialist consultants, contractors and other key stakeholders can realise a

number of value-adding benefits – including (Figure 2-6):

• new levels of professionalism (better standard of work)


- 33 -

• fewer delays and expensive mistakes (earlier completion dates);

• fewer accidents, less ill health and reduced staff turnover;

• more cost effective projects and an increase in repeat business (competitive

advantage).

Adapted from Robbins (1998, 138-86, 347, 595-98, 601-46)

Figure 2-6: Commitment to People

Injecting renewed or enhanced levels of respect within an organisation can

therefore be viewed as an important and effective means to avoid the loss of

skilled and experienced employees and other key stakeholders; and a way to

enhance overall performances and levels of commitment towards the delivery of


2.1.4. Resistance to Change

Supplementary to the initial barriers identified in the Background Literature

Review, this section examines various alternate demands, forms of resistance

and challenges that tend to threaten the delivery of change within a construction

industry organisation.

More Satisfied Clients & improved

Profitability

More ProductiveEmployees (Healthier,

Happier, etc)

Improved Efficiency

(Cost, Quality & Time)

Better Working Conditions & Remuneration

COMMITMENT TO

PEOPLE


- 34 -

2.1.4.1. Individual Resistance

In Grenier and Metes (1995, xv, 320), there are at least five reasons why

employees may resist the delivery of change within an organisation (see Table 2-

3). Recognising and better understanding what effect these barriers or forms of

resistance may have on the delivery of change will assist change in making more

informed decisions on how to best manage these individual challenges.

Table 2-3: Individual Resistance to the Delivery of Change

SOURCE INDIVIDUAL RESISTANCE

Habit • People are essentially habitual in nature (creatures of habit) relying on habits and

programmed responses - developed and entrenched within them over time.

• When confronted with change, the tendency to respond in one’s habitual ways becomes

a source of resistance. Simply changing places or environments (Section 2.4.4.1) can

disrupt an individual’s habits such as building new working relationships and identifying

new personal and professional boundaries.

Security • Certain people have a high need for security and are likely to resist change because it

threatens their sense of safety, fearing that the delivery of a new solution may challenge

their current employment, need of expertise, or skill level.

Economic Factors

• This is the threat that innovative change may alter current job tasks, established new

work routines, lower employee income etc.

• Similar to the above security factor, economic fears surface due to employees being

concerned that they won’t be able to ‘perform the new tasks or routines to their previous

standards, especially when pay is closely tied to productivity.’

Fear of the Unknown

• Employees dislike uncertainty within their work environment.

• Therefore, if the reasons and benefits of delivering innovative change is not clearly

articulated (clouded or disguised), they may develop a negative attitude or behave

dysfunctional toward the proposal (Section 2.1.3.4).

Selective Information Processing

• Individuals tend to shape their world through their perceptions of their environment.

• Once created, this perceived world tends to resist any form of change, by selectively

processing information in order to keep these perceptions intact - by employees:

o only hearing what they want to hear;

o disregarding information that may challenge the world they’ve created around them;

o ignoring arguments, statistics or potential benefits the change will provide them.


- 35 -

2.1.4.2. Lack of Investment

In an ‘ideal world’, Whyte (2002, 160) suggest every member within an

organisation (from senior executives to on-site labourers) would be constantly

looking for investment opportunities and ways to embrace new technologies or

innovative solutions that could make their work more effective and easier.

However, in the ‘real world’, reasons why most employees don’t invest in change

are provided in ALLPM (2006, 1-3):

• Cost vs. Value: Convinced that investing in change is more of a cost factor

(producing unacceptable returns), than a value generator.

• Bad Business: Perception that it is bad business and non-contributing to

replace old, or unbroken technologies, processes, frameworks etc. with new

ones — the ‘if it is not broken … don’t fix it’ attitude (Sections 2.1.1 and 2.4.4).

• Lack of Integration: The difficulty of integration or compatibility between all key

stakeholders.

• Tradition: Not knowing or caring what potential innovative change has satisfied

with the way things have always been done.

• Limited Drive: Insufficient stakeholder drive (particularly from the client).

• Time: Too busy to deliver or learn a new way of ‘doing something’ (Section

2.1.5.1).

• Inadequacy: Fear of embarrassment, failure or incompetence in effectively

applying change (Sections 2.1.5.2 and 2.2.6).

2.1.4.3. Team Resistance

In Robbins (1998, 138-86, 347, 595-98, 601-46), the complex and turbulent

nature of today’s global business environment has resulted in a move towards

team-based organisations, changing the traditional ways in which people interact

and work. Where the success (in terms of effectiveness and productivity) of

delivering change within these autonomous, self-directed and cross-functional

teams, requires the recognition and better understanding of team member


- 36 -

‘issues’ or misconceptions they may have in relation to the proposed new way of

‘doing something’.

ALLPM further states that construction industry team relations, communications

and reporting structures can be highly complicated and difficult to manage. This

is due to, for example, each team member usually having a personal agenda to

satisfy, while attempting to balance their assigned professional roles, tasks and

work responsibilities.

In addition to the above, organisations may experience a general sense of

resentment among team members who are responsible for the delivery of change

caused by, for example:

• employees being assigned to a team which they perceive to be unfitting due to

personal or professional inconsistencies;

• existing team members being instructed to take on new roles (in addition to

their existing workload) thereby causing a feeling of being powerless,

overworked and disrespected;

• the team’s atmosphere being too stressful resulting in members (passively or

actively) not fully committing to or completing their individual assignments; and

• team members doing ‘what is necessary to get by’ resulting in non-

performance and a prescription for the delivery of change to fail.

2.1.4.4. Organisational Resistance

In line with the above investment challenges, Robbins (1998, 138-86, 347, 595-

98, 601-46) identifies six major sources of organisational resistance to the

delivery of change (Table 2-4).


- 37 -

Table 2-4: Organisational Sources of Resistance to Change

SIX SOURCES ORGANISATIONAL RESISTANCE

1. Structural Inertia

This acts as a counterbalance to maintain sustainability - evident in, for example:

• identification and formalisation process of job descriptions and procedures;

• training and socialisation techniques that reinforce specific role requirements

and skill sets; and

• employment processes that reshape and direct employees to behave in certain

traditional ways (the way we do things around here)

2. Limited Focus

Organisations are generally made up of a number of interdependent subsystems

and subcultures (Section 2.4.4), where one cannot be changed without affecting the

others. For example:

• The proposed change or new way of doing things is unlikely to be easily

accepted if senior management decide to change the overall business strategy

of an organisation without simultaneously modifying the individual business

structure of its departments or teams.

3. Group Inertia

When individual employees see the benefit in changing, group norms or peer

pressure are renowned constraints. For example:

• A union member on a project is willing to accept the changes (suggested by

management); yet overall union member norms or customs / traditions dictate

the opposite – which is likely to result in the individual team member to follow

suit and resist the suggested change.

4. Threat To Expertise

Specialists and experts within organisations may be threatened by changes in an

organisation’s strategy. For example:

• The introduction of a typical disruptive event (Section 2.1.1) in the early 1980s

was decentralised personal computers, which allowed managers to gain

remote and direct access to information held within a company’s mainframe.

This was strongly resisted by many information systems departments as it

threatened the future need of the specialised skills and employment of those in

the centralised information systems departments.

5. Threat to Established Power Relationship

Rearranging the authority of decision makers can threaten an employee’s long-

established relationships with a current decision maker.

• Introducing participative decision making or self-managed work teams may

threaten existing supervisors and middle managers in losing their ‘power’ and

authority.

6. Threat To Established Resource Allocation

Leaders and senior managers that control sizable resources often see change as a

threat such as seeing the proposed change as a means of reducing current

budgets, decreasing current staff numbers, or threatening future resource

allocations.


- 38 -

Robbins (1998, 138-86, 347, 595-98, 601-46) further states that better

recognition and management of organisational barriers toward the delivery of

change, will ensure more informed evaluations during the decision-making

process of the delivery process. This enhanced level of managing organisational

resistance can, according to Rai (2005) be achieved by actively:

• maintaining overall organisational stability which is essential when confronted

with any form of change;

• matching or adapting existing organisational subcultures to the proposed

change;

• overcoming group norms and individual pier pressures that tend to challenge

the delivery process;

• ensuring specialists and experts within the organisation do not feel threatened

by the delivery of an ‘new and improved way of doing something’ within their

immediate work environment; such as potential job losses, or increased

workloads;

• identifying and maintaining existing value-adding relationships between current

decision makers and employees; and

• better securing and managing budgets, current staff numbers and future

allocation of resources.

2.1.4.5. Lack of Shared ‘Ownership’

Professor Getz from the European School of Management, Paris (ESCP-EAP),

who is referred to by Baines (1998) as one of Europe's leading authorities on

innovation and idea management, states ‘once people see their ideas being

implemented, there will be sea change in their attitude… it would no longer be

‘their’ company but ‘our’ company’. Kajewski and Weippert (2003) supports these

views, stating that people are generally more committed to delivering new plans

and activities when they share the ownership in the development and decision-

making process of those plans.


- 39 -

Stating in many cases, even managers who are not involved in a decision-

making process tend to ‘listen yet not change’. This disconcerted reaction

towards change can be further fuelled by the fear of disempowerment or loss in

ability to ‘control’ their immediate surroundings.

Baines further highlights continued neglect of actively involving relevant

managers, employees, team members and other key stakeholders during the

decision-making process - of whether or not, what, when, where, how etc. to

deliver change within an organisation - can also contribute to the formation of the

infamous ‘not invented here’ syndrome, causing costly delays and eventual

failure. That by providing employees insufficient opportunities for them to share

their individual concerns, knowledge and experiences - in relation to the delivery

and application of change - can create a sense of dictatorship and lack of

respect, which Baines describes as the root of many ensuing sensations of

injustice and enhanced levels of fatigue (stress).

2.1.5. Overcoming Resistance to Change

Examples of tactics, methods and approaches that Weippert and Kajewski (2009,

319-38), Black and Gregersen (2002, 20-86) and others suggest be considered

to help overcome the construction industry’s inherent resisting nature towards the

delivery and application of change within organisations are outlined in the

following sections.

2.1.5.1. Overcoming the Perceived Lack of Time

Certain large organisations may feel it is too time consuming, if not impossible, to

try to determine the needs and values of hundreds of employees to ensure the

successful delivery of change (Section 2.1.3.4). In line with CRISP (2000b), one

way to help overcome this challenge is to customise this process to best suit

each organisation’s work environment and business requirements.


- 40 -

That is to say, senior managers are to identify their own motivations, incentives

and reasons for employing change (usually from an overall organisational, team

or project perspective), and then promote, cascade or filter these down the

hierarchy of the organisation. At the same time senior managers need to

delegate the task to middle and / or project managers; for them to identify the

motivational factors, appropriate rewards and expected incentives of their

employees.

Completing the above process and documenting and circulating its findings to the

decision-making team, may provide a better and more accurate understanding of

what motivates senior managers, individual employees for them to readily accept

change within their current or future work environments.

2.1.5.2. The Need to Overcome Fear

There is also a perceived and unspoken, yet ever-present ‘fear of exploitation’

towards employing change within the construction industry. CRISP (2000a)

provides the following suggestions on how this fear can be managed:

• Create a common understanding among all stakeholders that will enable

positive actions.

• Provide appropriate, easily accessible and good-practice information on risk

evaluation and sustainable delivery / implementation processes.

• Consider both cultural (social) and formal (contractual, infrastructure) changes

to remove any perceived liability, failure and allocation of blame, thereby

creating an environment that is receptive to the creation and application of

innovative ideas, confronting and overcoming challenges and recognising

opportunities.

• Investigate successful and unsuccessful case-study projects to provide

historical lessons that can be applied to similar future projects (Section 2.2.6).

• Finally, reduce constraints imposed by regulations, codes and standards that

tend to oppose innovative approaches and overall progress.


- 41 -

2.1.5.3. Mapping Drivers and Barriers of Change

In the example presented in Table 2-5, McShane and Travaglione (2007)

suggests employing the Force-field Analysis (similar to the Force-field Model

discussed in Section 2.4.4.1) to help map out any driving and restraining forces

that may influence the successful delivery of change within an organisation.

Table 2-5: Change Force-field Analysis

EXAMPLES OF DRIVING FORCES EXAMPLES OF RESTRAINING FORCES

Innovation Time to market

Cash for knowledge Competition

Long term cost benefit Initial development cost

Competitive advantage Risk of failure

Time saving Initial development time

Quality improvement Awareness of track record

Education Knowledge sharing

Financial incentive Understanding of process

According to CRISP, the probability of delivering change can increase if the driving forces outweigh the restraining forces. That is, while both the driving and

restraining forces may influence the successful delivery of change within an

organisation, they should be equally emphasised during the decision-making

process, and all efforts are to be made to reduce, neutralise and / or remove the

restraining forces. Uren (2001, 50), for example identify six ways to help achieve

this in Table 2-6.


- 42 -

Table 2-6: Six ways of Minimising Restraining Forces of Change

SIX CHANGE STRATEGIES

EXAMPLE

1. Communication Client complaint letters, council restrictions, fines, notifications etc. are openly

shared with employees and other key stakeholders.

2. Learning Organisation adopts a project- based learning and knowledge-sharing structure

so that employees can learn how to work in teams and from other key

stakeholders.

3. Employee involvement

Form a task force to help recommend new client, service and procurement

practices.

4. Stress management

Employees attend sessions to discuss any concerns, suggestions, and

recommendations regarding the proposed change.

5. Negotiation Employees agree to replace strict or singular job categories with multi-skilling to

ensure; for example, increased job security.

6. Coercion Senior management to tell project leaders to ‘get on board’ and accept the

proposed change, or leave.

2.1.5.4. Aligning the Delivery of Change

Although it is not a new phenomenon to try and align the delivery process of

change with that of an organisation and its overall business strategy, Schneider

(2000) confirms it is not an easy task.

‘We adapt to change, we initiate change,

We experience change, we endure change,

We undergo change, we participate in change,

We create change, we resist change,

We even enjoy change and may even learn from change…

…but how do we deliver change?’ Davidson (2010)

In Cabrera et al. (2001) for example, an organisation may have the optimum

implementation strategy in place (Section 2.3.1), but if the organisation’s

(employees) culture is not properly aligned with overall delivery process and

supportive of the business strategy, then the delivery of change may either stall

or fail. That is to say, no matter how strong an organisation’s commitment and


- 43 -

approach is towards the delivery process of change, the organisation’s culture

and subculture groups are always stronger (Section 2.2.4).

According to Cabrera et al. (2001), there is not one right way to get people to

willingly accept a new way of ‘doing something’, but many different ways,

depending on; for example, the distinctive values and dynamics of the

organisation (Section 2.4.5). Whilst emphasising the need for alignment between,

for example, the culture and subcultures of an organisation, and the delivery of

change; it also needs to be designed to fit the organisation’s current structure

and overall business strategy. Alternatively, the organisation’s current structure

and overall business strategy is to be reshaped to suit the demands of the new

way of ‘doing things’. To achieve this alignment, Cabrera suggests it is essential

to recognise and understand the interconnections between three distinct factors;

namely:

• the proposed innovative change;

• the people (end users); as well as

• their relationship with other important business related subsystems such as

organisational structure, business and management processes, objectives and

strategies.

In addition to having a general understanding of the above three factors,

Weippert (2000) further states it is imperative for senior management to identify

the most appropriate implementation strategy (Section 2.3.1) for a proposed

change, because the implementation process itself can inevitably unbalance the

above three factors. Failure in achieving the required equilibrium (which would

normally allow the change to be of value to the right people, in the right way, and

at the right times) may result in the wasteful misuse of invaluable time, efforts

and resources.


- 44 -

2.1.5.5. Build a Knowledge-sharing Philosophy

Construction industry organisations tend to accumulate a wealth of information,

knowledge and experience in relation to their jobs, tasks, and roles within

organisations and on projects. Weippert et al. (2002, 103-16), Kajewski et al.

(2002), Kajewski and Weippert (2003) and Von Krogh et al. (1998, i-xiv, 8, 25,

84, 123, 223-90). Although some of these undertakings can increase overall

productivity and efficiency levels, organisations are often reluctant (for various

reasons) to pass along or share their knowledge and experiences with others.

From a cultural perspective, Zweig and Brodt (2006) determined that ‘if we [as

organisations] want to move into the knowledge era, our biggest challenge is a

cultural one’. That ‘people with critical knowledge often protect it as if it were their

own property, and will engage in behaviours to hide knowledge from others’.

These observations are based on the outcomes of a study investigating reasons

as to why employees are reluctant to share their knowledge within organisations.

Additional reasons for ‘hiding knowledge’ by Amin et al. (2001, 50-51) include:

• Interpersonal: Which includes ‘circumstances in which people believe an

injustice has been done to them; being distrustful of management; or feel they

are reciprocating for someone else's behaviour toward them;

• Lack of Self Confidence: Employees being unsure, believing they are better off

not sharing anything as they are afraid of, for example negative job

evaluations;

• Organisational Climate: Promoting a culture of not sharing and secrecy, this

result in employees adopting this ‘dominant culture’. These ‘pitfalls of secrecy’

of what should and should not be disclosed (including when and to whom),

often leads to a work environment where everyone keeps to themselves. This

can hinder productivity due to a continual ‘reinvention of the wheel’ in solving

problems and having to repeatedly absorb recurring and costly failures.

This conscious endeavour to collaborate and build a knowledge-sharing

philosophy is supported by White and Bruton (2007, 16-165, 243-57, 393),

Weippert and Kajewski (2008b), and Zweig and Brodt (2006). Improving


- 45 -

organisational efficiencies can be achieved through the collective efforts of

employees capturing, sharing and applying their experiences (knowledge) more

effectively. Suggesting this conscious endeavour to collaborate and build a

knowledge-sharing philosophy is the basis for developing strong, long-term, and

team-based working relationships within and between industry sectors,

organisations, teams, projects and key stakeholders.

Finally, White and Bruton (2007, 16-165, 243-57, 393) best describe the need to

promote a knowledge-sharing philosophy:

‘If organisations want to promote knowledge sharing and it is in their best

interests to do so, they need to enhance the workplace climate and make

knowledge sharing and collaboration a norm in the workplace

it could be part of their performance appraisals.

If employees know they will be rewarded for sharing their expertise, they

will be more open to doing so’.

2.1.5.6. Training and Development

Although training and education is discussed at greater length in Section 2.2.6, it

is acknowledged here due to its relevance in helping overcome the construction

industry’s debatable resistance towards change. White and Bruton (2007, 16-

165, 243-57, 393) agree, leading organisations that have the required skill

development and training programs in place tend to benefit from three common

features:

• Informed Opportunism: Allowing individual employees to be able to grow,

expand and / or explore thereby enhancing overall creativity and sharing of

knowledge and experience.

• Directed Empowerment: Through employees being made responsible for

various activities ‘forcing’ them to learn ‘the new way of doing things’.

Throughout this, the organisation supports their newly acquired role by


- 46 -

allowing them sufficient time and offering professional advice to further

develop and master their new responsibilities.

• A Turning Prism: Allowing employees to change their initial views, beliefs and

overall perceptions (culture) towards a new process, framework or new way of

doing things, thereby enhancing and stimulating their overall motivation.

2.1.5.7. Mentor Employees

Another method of transforming employees to overcome any resistance they may

have towards the delivery of change is through mentoring, defined by White and

Bruton (2007, 16-165, 243-57, 393) as:

‘The direct one-on-one activity between employees and the organisation

… designed to allow two parties to learn from each other’.

In line with White and Bruton (2007, 16-165, 243-57, 393), organisations that are

successful in adapting themselves to change, traditionally tend to promote

mentoring activities. This is achieved by encouraging the forming of formal and

informal relationships between the more experienced employees and the new or

inexperienced ones. The ‘mentor’, whose principal role is to share information,

knowledge, guidance, experiences, enthusiasm etc. tends to influence the

original perceptions, attitudes and thinking (culture) of a new member; as well as

how (or how not to) react towards change.

Most importantly, Robbins (1998, 138-86, 347, 595-98, 601-46) suggests the

need to ensure that the mentoring occurs in both directions, where senior and

more experienced managers mentor junior employees, and where new

employees mentor senior management on, for example, their newly acquired

tertiary knowledge and education on more innovative ways of doing the same

thing. This achieves the required level of respect and shared ownership required,

as emphasised in Sections 2.1.3.6 and 2.1.4.5.


- 47 -

2.2. Innovation

The second hypothesised dynamic to consider as part of the decision-making

process when delivering innovative change, is innovation. Construction industry

organisations are to include their innovative capabilities in the decision-making

process by recognising and better understanding; for example, various innovation

types, myths, influences, measures, challenges and drivers.

2.2.1. Innovation Defined

Section 2.1 refers to change being the only constant in our world, and identifies

the urgent need for the construction industry to do things differently in order to

keep up with informed client needs and increasing expectations. Innovation is

described in Manley (2006, 3-6) as simply another form of change, albeit more

sophisticated and specialised in nature. It entails the application of a new idea to

improve; for example, an existing product, process or service. This action in turn

results in some form of change taking place, by moving away from the old way of

doing things and embracing a new and improved way of doing ‘something’.

Inevitably, there is a wide and diverse range of definitions for the term innovation

(See Glossary).

In a study on improving the performances of the Australian construction industry

by Price Waterhouse Coopers (2002), the term ‘innovation’ is defined as ‘a broad

range of activities packaged together’, which in turn can be compartmentalised

into five distinct categories:

• Involving or driven by either technological or organisational changes.

• An improvement of current arrangements / settings, or the development of a

new / ‘world-first’ idea.

• The introduction of significantly improved or new products (goods or services);

processes (production and delivery methods); business methods (business

practices, internal / external relations); and marketing methods (design,

package, placement, promotion, pricing).


- 48 -

• Being along a continuum (ranging from incremental to radical change).

• Concerning change and the benefits that can be achieved.

In a report on innovation and the Australian construction industry, Manley (2006,

3-6) describes innovation as being driven by clients, competitors, suppliers,

management, staff, organisational culture and behaviour. This further defines it

as ‘a novel way of adding economic value’ or ‘a managed process for

commercialising creative technologies, processes, products, services and

markets’

2.2.2. Types of Innovation

Once an organisation determines that developing and / or delivering innovative

change is an essential part of their business strategy, it must undertake the

challenging task of determining the most appropriate type of innovation to pursue

or to identify with. According to White and Bruton (2007, 16-165, 243-57, 393),

the debate on what the acceptable degree, type or classification of an innovative

undertaking entails, is inconclusive. This is due to:

• there being a wide range of innovation types and classifications available for

today’s construction industry organisations to consider;

• not having a guaranteed formula or best profile to fully rely on; and

• the potential threat of being ‘too innovative’ (Section 2.2.2.4).

With the above challenges and limitations in mind, the following section looks at

innovation from four different perspectives as presented in White and Bruton

(2007, 16-165, 243-57, 393). These are ‘Product’, ‘Process’, ‘Knowledge’, and

‘Directionless’ innovation.


- 49 -

2.2.2.1. Product Innovation

Although viewed separately, the concept of Product Innovation is closely

entwined with that of Process Innovation (Section 2.2.2.2), where the one usually

cannot take place without having some effect on the other. Product Innovation

takes place where people, charged with the research and development (R&D) of

innovative products, focus on aligning their efforts with the goals and objectives

of the organisation. These R&D efforts are usually divided into three main

categories:

• Basic: Also referred to as ‘pure’ R&D and aimed at providing value to the

organisation and its clients, with the potential to provide great rewards through

the creation of new knowledge, leading products and innovative ways of doing

business.

• Applied: Uses the knowledge gained from the above Basic R&D efforts –

aimed at providing value to the organisation, its clients and the marketplace by

developing new products to change an organisation’s strategic position within

the industry. This in turn may lead to an enhanced competitive advantage.

• Systems integration: This is the most incremental R&D effort and is aimed at

supporting existing business improvements or opening new markets with

already established products, and involves the act of innovation ‘tweaking’ and

organisational knowledge ‘adjusting’ to increases competitive leverage.

2.2.2.2. Process Innovation

The next form of innovation that construction industry organisations may consider

is described in White and Bruton (2007, 16-165, 243-57, 393) as Process

Innovation. Its main purpose is to increase the efficiencies and effectiveness of

organisations, and requires both the organisation and its employees to adapt to

any change in processes. There are also two types of Process Innovation, both

of which can help improve the output-to-input ratio of an organisation.


- 50 -

The first type of Process Innovation is Restructuring, where organisations are

required to review what they do and why; due to for example, information not

getting to the proper decision-making employees in time; lack of identifying

organisational threats and timely opportunities; or due to untimely or unpredicted

disruptions that have destabilised the organisation’s environment. In this case

organisation to experience a constant level of small changes in areas such as

processes, tasks and social structures.

According to White and Bruton, a common restructuring activity is to introduce

one of two types of downsizing; either laying-off employees; or having to

discontinue a certain service, product or level of expertise. Both are usually

financially driven and viewed negatively by employees and managers. In some

cases, even once an organisation is downsized, it may continue on its original

downward spiral of negative experiences due to, for example:

• a certain financial benefit being overlooked or not realised;

• remaining employees feeling they are being overworked (resulting in poor

productivity and decreased motivation);

• Increased levels of uncertainty among remaining employees and managers

(which fuel their fears and lack of security); or

• the search for alternate employment and resulting loss of knowledge and

expertise.

The second type of ‘process innovation’ that White and Bruton suggest

construction industry organisations may consider to help improve their efficiency

is that of Reengineering. In this case organisations continuously pursue new and

improved systems requiring fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of work

processes in order to achieve important goals and objectives; such as increased

productivity, optimised shareholder value, improved results and enhanced work

efficiencies. The overall objective in considering the reengineering approach is

also said to be three-fold (reinforcing the Three-stage Model approach discussed

in Section 2.4.4.1):


- 51 -

• First, to identify processes and activities that are non-value adding – by getting

key managers, employees and team members to respond to the three

questions:

o Why does the organisation work the way it does?

o What value is added to this existing work practice?

o How can this work be done better?

• Second, to eliminate these unproductive and unnecessary activities;

• Finally, to replace these with new and more competitive ways of ‘doing the

same things’ that will add value to the organisation.

Unfortunately, according to Black and Gregersen (2002, 20-86) and Skyrme and

Amidon (1997), many organisations still tend to wait until the bitter end (see

Section 2.1.2 - crisis stage) before deciding to undertake the above

reengineering processes. The result of this delayed reaction is twofold, it can

either:

• Motivate and drive managers, employees and key stakeholders to be more

open towards trying ‘new things’; or

• Deflate current levels of motivation and trust in; for example, securing

guaranteed futures in employment or improved work environments. The end

result is that it:

o fuels enhanced levels of resistance;

o raises doubt in the ability to ‘do things’ better; and

o negatively affects any innovative efforts towards improving current work

environments – such as becoming more competitive, breaking through

existing productivity thresholds, and reducing or omitting any inefficiencies.

2.2.2.3. Knowledge Innovation

Hasan and Handzic (2003, i-x, 48, 343, 568) describe an organisation’s

knowledge-focussed strategy as yet another form, type, or classification of

innovation – referring to it as ‘Knowledge Innovation’. In this case the challenge is

not the shortage of creativity or innovation within organisations, but rather in their


- 52 -

ability to capture, store and disseminate these innovative ideas and experiences

(knowledge). Another challenge is to further develop these into, for example

enhanced KM systems, methods, frameworks and processes that can effectively

capture, convert, manage and distribute the newly attained knowledge into areas

where they can be most beneficial and profitable.

Improvements made to the above activities will, according to Skyrme and Amidon

(1997), further enhance the commercialisation opportunities of an organisation.

Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995, i-xii, 1-7, 284) agree, although the ‘strategic thrust’

of Knowledge Innovation may be difficult to undertake and manage, it has the

greatest potential to improve overall performances. This is because continuous

innovative efforts tend to enhance an organisation’s competitiveness; as a new,

emerging and knowledge-conscious society is being formed — one that

recognises knowledge as ‘the’ resource, rather than simply ‘a’ resource of future

growth and advancement (Figure 2-7).

Adapted from Gann (1997)

Figure 2-7: Knowledge Innovation: As a Competitive Resource

COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE

C

ontin

uous

In

nova

tion

Kno

wle

dge

Cre

atio

n Knowledge-Conscious

Organisation and Team ‘Society’

‘Strategic Thrust’

Inpu

t In

put

Inpu

t


- 53 -

2.2.2.4. Directionless Innovation

The final example of an innovation type that construction industry organisations

may be exposed to, is identified by Manley (2006, 3-6) as Directionless

Innovation, also referred to as a ‘trap’ to being ‘too innovative’. In this case, when

searching for ways to overcome or improve on construction industry

inefficiencies, being ‘too innovative’ can result in organisations experiencing

‘directionless inventiveness’, resulting in one of three innovations presented in

Gann (1997):

• Unstructured or Accidental: where benefits from improved quality and speed,

as well as reduced costs are not necessarily the original goal of the

organisation;

• Incremental: where a number of small changes made by an organisation, result

in major changes to the organisation’s overall performance or construction

process by, for example:

o Being driven by ‘market-pull’ factors, whilst relying greatly on the

organisational skills of managers, employees and team members

o Involving non-technical activities (such as securing lasting linkages with

industry experts); or forging strong and trusting relationships with key

project stakeholders (such as manufacturers, suppliers, specialist and

clients).

• Radical: Usually fuelled by major structural change; new forms of competition;

and industrial upheaval (Sections 2.1.1). This type of innovation is also

recognised as being mostly driven by ‘technology-push’ factors within an

industry sector, whilst relying greatly on the technical (rather than non-

technical) skills and expertise of managers, employees and team members

alike.

2.2.3. Innovative Organisations

Ever-increasing levels of competition force well-established organisations to

defend themselves against their traditional competitors, as well as smaller,


- 54 -

entrepreneurial organisations that develop new and innovative products and

services. This according to Gann (1997), results in organisations having to

become more innovative in their approach when responding to the various forces

that fuel the need for survival — forces such as the need for increased profit

share; the desire to enter a new market; wanting to be a leader or ‘first follower’;

or for reasons of status.

For organisations to readily accept change, Egbu (2004, 301-13) identifies three

factors that the construction industry’s efficiency, competitiveness,

responsiveness and ability to be more innovation depends on the:

• type of skills and expertise employed within an organisation;

• efficiency and stability of relationships employees have with other (internal and

external) key stakeholders; and

• transfer of information and knowledge (rate, format, ease, timing, relevancy

etc.) between the temporary alliances of the key stakeholders of a project’s

supply chain (Section 2.2.2.3).

2.2.3.1. Culture of Innovative Organisations

The culture of organisations is acknowledged as a key ingredient of its innovative

capabilities. As noted by Rai (2005), innovative organisations tend to have similar

social practices, such as encouraging experimentation and supporting risk taking,

where:

• employees readily suggest and try new ideas (especially when they feel such

behaviours are not penalised);

• organisations reward both successes and failures (Section 2.1.3.5); and where

• mistakes are ‘celebrated’ - by ‘protecting people who stick their necks out’.

A report by Toole (1998) on Europe's leading authorities on innovation and idea

management confirms that embedding the facilitation and promotion of innovative

undertakings into the ‘DNA of a company's operation and culture’ is essential,


- 55 -

because ‘as products get copied or become redundant at a faster rate than

before, innovation is the only source for sustainable competitive advantage’.

A paper by RICS and Salford University (2007, 9-14) agrees. It states that when

attempting to fuel the innovative capabilities and readiness of an organisation

(Section 2.2.3.2) - in terms of profitability, growth, competitiveness, performance,

adaptability etc. - there is a need to consider the social capabilities; cultural

practices; as well as a multitude of expertise, relationships and communication

networks within the work environment.

2.2.3.2. Innovative Capabilities of Organisations

A construction industry organisation’s ability to compete over time may,

according to Blayse and Manley (2003), lie in its ability to develop two distinct,

yet interactive types of innovative capabilities:

• Exploitative: Using the organisation’s existing resources to improve efficiency

to generate short-term competitive advantage; and

• Explorative: Creating and using new or external resources and capabilities to

improve organisational effectiveness and to generate sustainable and ongoing

competitive advantage.

In line with the above findings, a report by Robbins (1998, 138-86, 347, 595-98,

601-46) states innovative capabilities and initiatives within the construction

industry can be further fuelled by a number of activities, including:

• enhanced client leadership (Section 2.2.5);

• building robust relationships with key stakeholders of its supply chain;

• mobilising integrated approaches to construction projects in response to; for

example, the fragmentation of the industry; the ‘one-off’ nature of most

projects or the large number of players and key stakeholders (Section 2.2.5.2);

• improving knowledge flows and integration of project experiences (Section

2.2.2.3);


- 56 -

• active use of ‘innovation brokers’ to facilitate access to support providers and

other external players with complementary knowledge bases;

• promoting innovative procurement systems such as partnering or alliancing;

• enhancing cooperative problem solving;

• adopting non-standard solutions;

• equitable allocation of risk;

• strengthening of performance-based regulations and standards through

enhancement of knowledge held by regulators and other key players; and by

• building up organisational resources by; for example, promoting a culture

supportive of innovation, enhancing in-house competence (Section 2.2.6);

supporting innovation champions and developing an effective implementation

strategy (Section 2.3.1).

2.2.3.3. Future Innovative Organisations

The competitive success of tomorrow’s construction industry may rely on its

ability to adapt to innovative change. This enhanced level of innovativeness and

competitiveness is achievable through the following examples by Robinson et al.

(2006, 793-808) - by:

• organisations and their members thinking ‘fast on their feet’ — their ability to

rapidly develop and deliver new counter-products, processes and solutions;

• industry suppliers and manufacturers shortening production runs and product

cycles, and by providing an ongoing stream of new and innovative products,

processes and solutions; and

• enhancing the flexibility and responsiveness of the construction industry’s

workforce (stakeholders) within an ever-changing and dynamic work

environment.


- 57 -

2.2.4. Measuring Innovation Success

Based on the findings from three empirical studies in the United Kingdom,

Manley et al. (2005) found that the innovation strategies of four construction

organisations were ‘path-dependent [and] strongly constrained by their current

position and core competencies as well as the specific opportunities open to

them in future’. Robinson et al. further state that the extent to which organisations

are successful in innovation can be measured through a number of variables,

including the:

• percentages of profit derived from the innovative product or solution;

• number of innovative products or solutions introduced within three to five years;

• average number of person-hour input per innovative product or solution;

• average time to market of the innovative product or solution;

• level of satisfaction of the client towards the innovative product or solution;

• average failure rate of the innovation during the developmental stage

(testability and robustness of a product or solution);

• extent to which innovation planning is linked to overall organisational strategy;

• extent of formal mechanisms to capture and share (learning) associated with

the innovation product or solution; and

• extent to which employees are involved in innovative undertakings and if they

are adequately supported, recognised and rewarded.

2.2.5. Sources that Drive Innovation

Although the project-driven nature of the construction industry and the delivery of

its end products may have their own set of challenges, Brandon (2006) suggests

extensive benefits can be realised by organisations, teams and projects who

have delivered appropriate forms of innovation. The following sections provide a

brief insight into a number of key innovation drivers that can help revitalise the

desire of construction industry organisations to become more innovative, and

help them realise the potential benefits and opportunities from doing so.


- 58 -

2.2.5.1. Clients Driving Innovation

Manley (2006, 3-6) states it is not uncommon for clients to be placed under the

spotlight as being key drivers for innovation within the construction industry. This

is based on the general conviction that it is the ‘clients’ financial muscle’ that can

influence and encourage industry professions to employ more innovative

techniques, processes, systems, tools etc. in the delivery of their end products

(civil and building structures, facilities etc.). Outcomes of various construction

industry case studies documented in Price Waterhouse Coopers (2002), identify

certain roles played by leading public and private-sector clients, can drive

innovation within a work environment. These roles include:

• setting challenging targets and designing new forms of contract;

• R&D undertakings and networking with specialist experts; and

• organising demonstrator projects.

Further discussion on government (public) clients and their influence on driving

innovation within the construction industry are discussed in Section 2.2.5.4.

2.2.5.2. Innovation Enabling Factors

Survey results from Skyrme and Amidon (1997), identify a number of key

enabling factors for realising successful innovation within the construction

industry including:

• the availability of capital and commitment of resources to fuel the

commercialisation of new ideas;

• commercialisation, business planning and project management capabilities,

fused with a positive attitude of senior management towards innovation;

• continued study, training and development of employees and management

skills to achieve the essential competencies required to recognise, capture and

commercialise innovation;

• dedicated employees and committed teams in promoting an innovation-society

(Section 2.4.5.3.4); and


- 59 -

• flexibility and adaptability of employees in creating innovative as well as

practical outcomes.

Although these factors demonstrate the wider range of internal and external

enablers of innovation, Price Waterhouse Coopers state the overall driver of

innovation within the Australian building and construction industry is undeniably

the sustainable demand for innovation itself.

2.2.5.3. Knowledge Assets

According to Robinson et al. (2006, 793-808), ‘innovation through knowledge [is]

a key factor in business success’, and it is timely for today’s construction industry

organisations to ‘develop a strategic advantage [against local and international

competitors] through the application of knowledge’ (Section 2.1.5.5 and 2.2.2.3).

These knowledge assets are identified by Brandon (2006) as a major source for

creating wealth, value, and are key drivers for innovative initiatives within

organisations, and traditional measurement frameworks that focus only on hard

tangible (e.g. financial) assets are no longer considered as reflecting an

organisation’s true value. The soft, intangible assets of knowledge (such as R&D,

experience and other intellectual resources) form a significant component in

valuing today’s organisations.

‘… for innovation to thrive there must be knowledge which is backed up by

intelligent thought… perception of what is needed… a feeling drawn from

experience or instinct… and a memory which provides discernment of

what is useful and what is not’. Weippert and Kajewski (2008b)

There is, according to Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995, i-xii, 1-7, 284), a clear shift in

focus which moves from the traditional ‘reactive’ quality inspection to a more

‘proactive’ total quality management approach, where many of today’s

organisations realise that relying on financial measures alone are very limited.


- 60 -

‘The future belongs to those endowed with knowledge’.

Brandon (2006)

Manley (2006, 3-6) agrees, the use of traditional financial reporting alone (to

accurately reflect a construction industry organisation’s value) is considered by

many stakeholders, investors, governments, and regulatory bodies, as being

insufficient. Further stating that there is a growing need to support traditional

documentation with more informed and innovative non-financial reporting by; for

example, providing measures of an organisation’s knowledge assets and

intellectual capital which truly reflects an organisation’s value in today’s

competitive business arena.

2.2.5.4. Government Influence

In addition to Section 2.2.5.1, where clients (in general) are identified as drivers

of innovation, the government is essentially a large public-sector client that can

influence the innovative undertakings of the construction industry. An

investigation conducted in Australia between 2003 and 2005 by Price

Waterhouse Coopers (2002) into 400 businesses, 14 government organisations,

8 industry associations and 4 universities, showed that ‘repeat public-sector

clients’ can play a ‘significant role in promoting innovation, by providing

favourable project conditions’. Repeat public-sector clients were further

nominated as being ‘encouragers’ of innovation within the construction industry,

and when compared to other industry groups, they had the:

• highest rate of investment in R&D;

• highest adoption rate of advanced practices and technologies; and

• best return on innovative undertakings.

Survey results in Manley (2006, 3-6) support Manley’s findings, confirming that

the government can drive innovation activities within the construction industry in

four distinct ways (Table 2-7):


- 61 -

Table 2-7:Government Influence on Innovation

GOVERNMENT’S ROLE AS A

DRIVER

INFLUENCE

Major client Buying goods and services from the building and construction industry and creating

demand for innovation on its projects (projects to detail their innovation program as

part of the selection criteria).

Regulator Developing and enforcing building codes and legislation that either encourages or

inhibits innovation.

Educator Promoting successful operators and innovation success stories, as well as

information through media promotion; such as reports, publications etc.

Custodian Creating a business environment through a favourable tax system that encourages

and rewards innovative businesses.

The government (public sector) therefore plays an important role in providing

ongoing support programs that foster innovative advances across all industry

sectors and can manipulate collaborative activities among key industry

stakeholders through ‘leading by example’, rewarding innovative undertakings,

and facilitating access to capital and other innovative investment opportunities.

2.2.5.5. Other Drivers of Innovation

Outcomes from various case studies documented in Michel (1998), identify five

additional dynamics that drive construction innovation opportunities:

• Crisis-driven: when innovative solutions are, for example, found through a

cooperative team approach due to being faced with some form of crisis -

where the ‘traditional adversarial approach’ is avoided and replaced by a more

‘creative best-for-project’ response;

• User-needs: when tenants of buildings, for example, request reduced whole-of-

life-costs from building owners - thereby driving innovative design;

• Regulatory Regimes: by adhering to, for example, performance-based building

codes - offering greater opportunity for innovation;


- 62 -

• Trade Conditions: due to, for example, growing internationalisation and

globalisation - allowing Australian construction businesses to expand their

markets globally;

• Social Values: by having to, for example, meet government energy targets or

other environmental concerns.

2.2.6. Sources that Challenge Innovation

According to White and Bruton (2007, 16-165, 243-57, 393), the construction

industry (in general) is lagging (compared to other leading industry sectors) due

to, in part, a large portion of its stakeholders being fearful of their innovative ideas

or undertakings being taken from them and duplicated. To help promote and

improve understanding of how to better manage and become more innovative,

the following section identifies myths and realities that influence the construction

industry’s desire to be more innovative.

2.2.6.1. Innovation Myth vs. Reality

Organisations (generally) are yet to fully recognise, confront, better understand,

and promote the common held myths about innovation, such as those identified

in White and Bruton (2007, 16-165, 243-57, 393) and presented in Table 2-8.

Doing so will help avoid misconceptions employees have towards establishing a

sustainable innovative climate / culture / philosophy within an organisation.


- 63 -

Table 2-8: Innovation Myth vs. Reality

MYTH REALITY

Ideas are the engine for innovation There are many brilliant ideas that never get

discussed or even presented – due to fear of

ridicule or rejection

A good process generates all the innovation

needed

Develop a long-term process where leadership,

culture and process are the three cornerstones to

innovation

If we have the next big idea (the ‘Eureka’

moment) then we will be successful

Develop a discipline that encourages continual

growth of ideas within the organisation, whilst

focussing on changing and adapting as required

Through innovation we can grow our way to

prosperity

Objectively analyse opportunities and grow when

you are ready

A good evaluation method eliminates bad

ideas

Be fully aware of the human dimension (culture)

and recognise individual contributions when

evaluating ideas

An entrepreneurial organisation will be most

successful in the long-run

Entrepreneurship is not always the right strategy –

rather seek a balance of behaviours

2.2.6.2. Innovation Control Mechanisms

Three kinds of control have been identified by Revenaugh (1994), and

recommended for equal consideration during the decision-making process of

delivering innovation within organisations:

• Financial Control: Referred to as the easiest to measure and control and

focusing on measuring short-term (monthly or quarterly) or long-term (annual)

gaps between the desired financial outcome (sales growth, profit and

expense), and the actual financial performance of the organisation;

• Strategic Control: Innovative organisations need to ensure appropriate actions

are taken today in order to meet future strategic goals and objectives;

• Culture Control: Although a less quantifiable method of control, it is deemed

most important due to an organisation’s culture (Section 2.2.4) having the

ability to promote or discourage the successful delivery of innovation.

Vs.


- 64 -

2.3. Implementation

The third hypothesised dynamic to consider as part of the decision-making

process when delivering innovative change, is the implementation method itself

— described by Paulson (1995) as ‘the challenge that comes at the end of all

new (and old) methods for improving organisations’.

2.3.1. Implementation Strategy

When trying to determine the most appropriate implementation strategy for

delivering change within an organisation, White and Bruton (2007, 16-165, 243-

57, 393) suggests senior managers consider four implementation strategies and

then select the one that best serves the organisation. These are graphically

illustrated in Appendix A:

• Total Conversion: Where the use of the old or traditional (existing) ways of

‘doing things’ is replaced with a new or better way on a fixed date;

• Parallel Operations: Most suited for implementing a new or unproven initiative

where the old and new way of ‘doing things’ run simultaneously (in parallel),

and where the transition from old to new is done gradually and over time; and

• Phased: Allows separate modules of the initiative to be added, over time,

eventually making up an integrated solution;

• Pilot: Used when delivering a new way of ‘doing things’ to dedicated personnel

who are interested, capable, motivated and the incentive to make it succeed.

2.3.2. Implementation Strategy Questions

Following the above selection process to identify the most appropriate

implementation strategy to help ensure the successful and most cost-effective

delivery of a new or improved way of doing ‘something’ within an organisation;

White and Bruton (2007, 16-165, 243-57, 393) suggest that should the goals and

objectives of an organisation change, then the implementation strategy will also


- 65 -

need to be amended to satisfy these new goals and objectives. In either case, to

help ensure these goals and objectives are met, organisations should consider

the following three prioritisation-related, allocation-related and delegation-related

implementation strategy questions:

• Prioritisation: What should we be doing now and what can we do later? o As stated in Section 2.1.2, the timing of implementing change could

determine the success or failure of that delivery;

o Ensure the prioritisation of relevant tasks, goals and actions meet those of

the implementation strategy (Section 2.5.2);

o Prioritisation is crucial — the need to meet one set of objectives within a

certain time frame, may be more or less important to an organisation than

another.

• Allocation: How much time or specialised skill is required for the prioritised

activities? o Once prioritised, assign dedicated resources to the various tasks, goals and

actions;

o The higher a task, goal, deliverable or action item is on the prioritisation list;

the higher priority for resources it receives;

o Prioritisation of resources and key activities can impact the implementation

process in three distinct ways:

− Timing: By ensuring the right resources are available when and where

needed;

− Human Resources: By convincing senior management that the right

number of employees with the desired skills, knowledge and experience

are recruited and retained (Section 2.1.3.6); and

− Existing Platforms: Benefiting from leveraging existing platforms,

expertise, relationships and knowledge (saving resources etc.).

• Delegation: What should be delegated and to whom? o Whilst change leaders are responsible (in one form or another) for the

overall success of delivering change within an organisation, and further

described as being accountable for the delegation (who), prioritisation

(when) and allocation (where) of the various tasks and actions required;


- 66 -

they are also responsible for the ‘how’ [implementation strategy] and ‘what’

[most suitable form of change].

2.3.3. Implementation Checklist

Critical to the successful management of an implementation strategy, is the

alignment of four key implementation factors (leadership, vision, processes and

resources) developed by White and Bruton (2007, 16-165, 243-57, 393). These

are presented in Figure 2-8 as a checklist for each of the four factors to help

determine the various strengths and weaknesses of organisations; identify any

opportunities to help dampen elevated levels of employee dissatisfaction; and to

help clarify any misunderstandings towards the delivery of change.

Adapted from Schein (1997, 12-15, 299)

Figure 2-8: Implementation Checklist

o Does management support new

ideas? o Do team members support new

ideas – by giving time, cooperation and resources?

o Does the team leader offer practical help and resources for the development of new ideas?

o What happens when new ideas fail?

o Does the team have a clearly

articulated vision, mission or set of objectives?

o Does everyone share the vision / objective(s)?

o Are the vision / objective(s) clearly stated?

o Did everyone participate in creating it / them?

o Are the vision / objective(s) attainable?

o Do team members share

information, knowledge or experience fully?

o Do all team members participate in decision-making?

o Are team members comfortable proposing new ideas?

o Are team members able to challenge standard practices?

o Is there a climate of trust within the group?

o Is excellence of central

importance to the team? o How does the manager monitor

and improve performance levels?

o Are all team members committed to excellence?

o Does the manager encourage open idea exchange / knowledge sharing?

VISION LEADERSHIP

PROCESSES RESOURCES?


- 67 -

2.4. Culture

The fourth dynamic to consider as part of the decision-making process when

delivering innovative change is the culture and subcultures of an organisation.

2.4.1. Why Study Culture?

Schein (1999, 13-14) suggests culture is important to recognise and respect.

Robbins (1998, 138-86, 347, 595-98, 601-46) also refers to culture as being

‘unquantifiable human factors’ such as values, meanings and experiences, which

are often excluded from formal business planning and dissemination of strategic

resources. A better understanding of these ‘operative culture forces’ can assist

managers in anticipating the consequences of their decisions. According to

McDermott and O'Dell (2001, 76-77), the study and better understanding of

culture is highly relevant and critical to the success of any organisation, due to its

‘function’ within organisations, where culture:

• has a boundary-defining role, creating distinctions between various

organisations;

• suggests a sense of identity for organisational members;

• facilitates the generation of commitment to something larger than an

individual’s self interest;

• enhances social stability by being the ‘social glue’ that holds the organisation

together, through, for example, providing suitable expectations as to what

employees should say and do, when and where; and

• serves as a sense-making and control mechanism that guides and shapes the

attitudes and behaviour of employees.

‘Our culture makes us who we are … a company defined by its people,

their talent, and the opportunity to do some pretty amazing things’

(Pepper (1995)


- 68 -

Similarly, Webster (1956) states the better understanding of culture also helps

generate ‘insight into the organising activity that would be overlooked or

presented differently in other approaches’, identifying six reasons why the study

of an organisation’s culture is important:

• Culture focuses on communication at all levels of the corporate hierarchy,

where individuals identify who they are in relation to one another and the

organisation, and where shared understandings form identifiable subgroups

and subcultures.

• By focusing on culture, one inevitably focuses on the daily routine and ‘sense

making’ that is the process of building identities and shared reality among

organisation members.

• A cultural approach focuses on largely ignored issues such as assumptions

and brings underlying values and motives to the surface.

• The understanding of culture offers a better insight to the managers and

leaders of organisations – not in order for them to better shape the culture, but

to better understand and participate in the ‘sense-making’ activities of

organisation members.

• Undertaking a cultural study will help identify novel approaches and enhanced

understanding of future organisations.

• Culture is pervasive, not simply a variable that affects the organisation; it is

indistinguishable from the organisation.

2.4.2. Culture Defined

In Williams et al. (1993, xi-15), the word ‘culture’ stems from the word ‘cultivate’

or the way in which people act on nature (their surroundings). In the case of

humans, Duarte and Snyder (2001) and Schein (1999, 13-14) agree, culture is

often the primary way in which one group (organisation, team etc.) differentiates

its set of shared mores, values, attitudes, beliefs and meanings from another.

Researchers in the field of organisational and team dynamics define culture in

many different ways, including [culture]…:


- 69 -

• ‘…begins to form wherever a group has enough common experience’ which

becomes the ‘property of that group’ Williams et al. (1993, xi-15);

• ‘…pervades the decision-making and problem-solving process of the

organisation, influencing the goals, means and manner of action’ [and is] ‘ a

source of motivation and de-motivation, of satisfaction and dissatisfaction

[thereby] underlining much of the human activity in an organisation’ Hensey

(2001);

• ‘…influenced by traditions, myths, history and heritage ... the sum of how we

do things around here’ Schein (1997, 12-15, 299);

• ‘…is a pattern of shared basic assumptions that has been learnt whilst solving

problems, that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore,

to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in

relation to those problems’ Williams et al. (1993, xi-15).

2.4.2.1. The ‘Lilly Pond’ of Culture

The characteristic patterns of a group’s behaviour and the elements of its culture

can be portrayed using a diagram of a Lilly Pond (Figure 2-9) originally by Duarte

and Snyder (2001) illustrating that the behaviours, attitudes, and values of people

(employees, team members etc.) are dependent upon the sets of conscious and

unconscious beliefs that they possess and seen as a ‘key elements’ of an

organisation’s culture.

According to Robbins (1998, 138-86, 347, 595-98, 601-46), culture can also be

viewed as ‘hidden scripts’, created by repeated interactions between members of

a group, which people use to guide their behaviours. These, over time, become

invisible and second nature, serving as shortcuts for guiding actions and making

decisions.


- 70 -

Figure 2-9: The ‘Lilly Pond’ of Culture

2.4.3. Characteristics of Culture

Following is a brief description of seven cultural terms presented in Figure 2-9 —

those of behaviour, perception, values, attitude, belief, assumption and

behaviour.

2.4.3.1. Behaviour ‘Link’

Robbins (1998, 138-86, 347, 595-98, 601-46) confirms that the understanding of

perceptions is important in the study of culture, because ‘people’s behaviour is

based on their perception of what reality is, not on reality itself’. Perception is

further defined by McDermott and O'Dell (2001, 76-77)as ’a process by which

individuals organise and interpret their sensory impressions in order to give

Change Leaders / Managers

OB

SER

VAB

LE

‘Con

scio

us’

Actions & Reactions

Attitudes Mind-set Viewpoint

Values Perceptions

Thinking

Philosophy Beliefs

UN

CO

NSC

IOU

S R

EPO

RTA

BLE

Performance

Deeds

DemeanourManners

Behaviours

CU

LTU

RE


- 71 -

meaning to their environment’, where the ‘world as it is perceived is the world that

is behaviourally important’. A study on cultural barriers by McDermott and O'Dell

(2001, 76-77) supports the analogy of the Culture Lilly Pond, by elaborating on

the visible and invisible dimensions of an organisation’s culture and the links

between the two. McDermott and O'Dell (2001, 76-77) further identify the link

between the two layers or dimensions of culture (visible and invisible dynamics)

as the behaviour of an organisation’s employees. Further stating that employee

core values are essentially communicated through how they act, speak, and

interpret the working environment around them, thereby reflecting a shared belief

(or lack of) towards certain values of an organisation.

2.4.3.2. Values

Most organisations have a ‘seen but unspoken’ set of core values that Robbins

(1998, 138-86, 347, 595-98, 601-46) asserts, guide what their employees do and

how they make sense of each other's actions. These are often simple statements

such as:

• ‘do good technical work’;

• ‘be a good soldier’;

• ‘don't say anything bad directly to others’ - ‘be careful to avoid risk’.

Values are also deemed important to the study of behaviour, because as

McDermott and O'Dell (2001, 76-77) states, ‘[they] lay the foundation for the

understanding of attitudes and motivation and because they influence our

perceptions’. However, according to Robbins (1998, 138-86, 347, 595-98, 601-

46), unlike attitudes, values are also cognitively evaluated in terms of their

rational or ‘logical consistency’ with existing beliefs. These then become the

‘backbone’ of an organisation, where for example the sharing of experiences is

tightly linked to a pre-existing core value of the organisation; and where networks

for sharing experiences build on existing networks that people tend to use in their

daily work.


- 72 -

2.4.3.3. Attitudes

‘Attitude’ is defined as:

‘Evaluative statements concerning objects, people, or events … reflect[ing]

how one feels about something’. Williams et al. (1993, xi-15)

‘A learned predisposition to respond in a consistently favourable or

unfavourable manner to a given object or idea’ Williams et al. (1993, xi-15)

According to Williams et al. (1993, xi-15), although the distinction between

attitudes and values can be characterised as being conceptually unclear, the two

are interrelated. They suggest that attitudes are not only learnt or acquired from,

for example parents, teachers, peer groups, employees, project leaders, but are

also dependent on experience. Further they state that attitudes (like values) are

developed and learnt over time, both involving an ‘affective evaluation that

prompts individuals to respond in a particular way’. Williams et al. further report

an attitude towards ‘something’ can be influenced by the existing beliefs of

individuals; or by individuals holding stereotypical attitudes towards that

‘something’ even without sufficient or complete information and confirmation on

what generated those beliefs in the first place (Figure 2-10).

Adapted from Robbins (1998, 138-86, 347, 595-98, 601-46)

Figure 2-10: Belief and Attitude

BELIEFS About ‘X’:

1… 2… 3…

ATTITUDE Towards

‘X’

EVALUATION of ‘X’

Attributes

‘X’ = Proposed Innovative Change


- 73 -

Robbins (1998, 138-86, 347, 595-98, 601-46) identifies three types of job-related

attitudes that employees hold towards certain aspects of their work environment:

• Job Satisfaction: ‘Individual’s general attitude toward their job’, where, for

example, ‘a person with a high level of job satisfaction holds positive attitudes

toward the job, while a person who is dissatisfied with their job holds a

negative attitude’;

• Job Involvement: Measuring the ‘degree to which a person identifies

psychologically with [their] job and perceived performance level important to

self-worth’. Employees with a high level of job involvement tend to experience

a number of advantages; including enhanced identification with the kind of

work they do, fewer absences and lower resignation rate; and

• Organisational Commitment: ‘A state in which an employee identifies with a

particular organisation and its goals, and wishing to maintain membership in

the organisation’. High organisational commitment means identifying with

one’s employing organisation as a whole.

Williams et al. (1993, xi-15) best describes the above varying levels of

commitment as follows:

‘An employee may be dissatisfied with his or her particular job and

consider it a temporary condition, yet not be dissatisfied with the

organisation as a whole… but when dissatisfaction spreads to the

organisation itself… individuals are more likely to consider resigning’ .

2.4.3.4. Belief

In its simplest form, Schein (1999, 13-14) refers to ‘belief’ as being ‘the

information that an individual has about an object’ and its link to a certain

attribute. The ‘object’ of belief in this case may be a person, a group, an

institution, behaviour, a policy etc.; and its associated ‘attribute’ may be any trait,

property, quality, quantity, characteristic, outcome or event. Furthermore, the use

of the term ‘belief’ can either be related to the information, experience or


- 74 -

knowledge of an individual; imply a certain level of faith or trust; or it can signify a

form of agreement.

2.4.3.5. Assumptions

There are various types of assumptions formed, taught and shared, within an

organisation, including those that relate to industry, reality, truth, time and space.

Schein (1997, 12-15, 299) for example, defines culture as the sum total of all the

shared and taken-for-granted assumptions that a group has learnt throughout its

history or existence. In Williams et al. (1993, xi-15) it is suggested culture is

important to recognise and respect. That the delivery team, senior management

or end users are essentially subcultures of an organisation (Section 2.4.4), with

their own set of assumptions, ideas and beliefs pertaining to the delivery and

application of for example, innovative change. Assumptions are also difficult to

change. When employees have to learn ‘something new’ then, according to

Williams et al. (1993, xi-15), the subsequent disruption to the norm of the current

work environment requires employees to resurrect and re-examine even the most

basic assumptions pertaining to that change.

2.4.3.6. Relationship between Beliefs, Attitudes, Values and Behaviour

Culture is described by Williams et al. (1993, xi-15) as ‘defined needs related to

behaviour’, where the attitudes, values and behaviours of employees are

dependent on their sets of beliefs, which further influence their attitudes, values

and behaviours in relation to a specific person, object or action (e.g. the delivery

of innovative change). When delivering, for example innovative change within an

organisation, Figure 2-11 shows the ‘climate’ of an organisation can be

influenced by the relationship between how employees would like to behave; and

what the work environment dictates how they do or should behave. Further

emphasising that if the attitudes, values, beliefs, perceptions and behaviour of

employees are in harmony; then a stronger, positive and more effective culture is


- 75 -

likely to result, where members of an organisation are committed to the overall

delivery process goals, aims, objectives etc.

Adapted from Lopez et al. (2004, 93-101)

Figure 2-11: Organisational Cultures and Climate

2.4.4. Cultural Dimensions and Classifications

2.4.4.1. Five Cultural Dimensions

The work of Hofstede and his five cultural dimensions has been recognised and

challenged by academic scholars and educators around the world. Many

international organisations assume the human instinct that resides 'deep inside'

all of its employees are the same. Yet, according to Hofstede (2009) they are not,

causing miscommunications and elevated levels of frustration between

negotiating organisations, due to them ‘operating’ under diametrically opposed

'rules and conventions.' Hofstede's five cultural dimensions follow:

ORGANISATIONAL CLIMATE

ATTITUDE & VALUE towards the

IMPLEMENTATION of an Innovative Change

Initiative

Set of BELIEFS

towards the IMPLEMENTATION

of an Innovative Change Initiative

Set of BELIEFS

towards the USAGE

of an Innovative Change Initiative

BEHAVIOUR towards the

USAGE of an Innovative Change

Initiative

Culture tow

ards the Introduction of an Innovative

Change Initiative

Set of BELIEFS

Towards the DELIVERY

of Innovative Change

ATTITUDE AND

VALUE Towards the DELIVERY


Set of BELIEFS

Towards the USAGE


BEHAVIOUR Towards the

USAGE of Innovative Change

Culture tow

ards the delivery of innovative change in an organisation


- 76 -

• Power Distance Index (PDI): The first dimension refers to the extent to which

the less powerful members of organisations and institutions accept and expect

that power is distributed unequally.

o This represents inequality (more versus less), but defined from below, not

from above.

o It suggests that a society's level of inequality is endorsed by the followers

as much as by the leaders.

o Power and inequality are extremely fundamental facts of any society – that

is, 'all societies are unequal, but some are more unequal than others'.

• Individualism (IDV): (Versus its opposite, Collectivism). This second

dimension represents the degree to which individuals are integrated into

groups.

o On the individualist side, we find societies in which the ties between

individuals are loose – that is, everyone is expected to look after

themselves and their immediate environment.

o On the collectivist side, we find societies in which people are integrated into

strong, cohesive in-groups, which continue protecting them in exchange for

unquestioning loyalty. The word 'collectivism' in this sense has no political

meaning. It refers to the group, not to the state.

• Masculinity (MAS): (Versus its opposite, Femininity). This third dimension

refers to the distribution of roles between the genders which is another

fundamental issue for any organisation / society to which a range of solutions

are found. Studies reveal that

o Women’s values: differ less among societies than men's values.

o Men’s values: (particularly from one country to another) contain a

dimension

− From very assertive and competitive and maximally different from

women's values on the one side.

− To modest and caring and similar to women's values on the other.

o The assertive and competitive pole has been called 'masculine', whilst the

modest, caring pole is referred to as 'feminine'.

• Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI): The fourth dimension deals with a

society's tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity and ultimately refers to man's


- 77 -

search for Truth. It indicates to what extent a culture ‘programs’ its members to

feel either uncomfortable or comfortable in unstructured situations.

Unstructured situations are novel, unknown, surprising, and different from

usual.

o Uncertainty ‘Avoiding’ Cultures:

− People try to minimise the possibility of uncertain situations by strict laws,

rules, safety and security measures,

− On the philosophical and religious level this culture tries to minimise the

possibility of uncertain situations by a belief in absolute Truth - 'there can

only be one Truth and we have it'.

− People are generally also more emotional, and motivated by inner

nervous energy.

o Uncertainty ‘Accepting’ Cultures:

− People are more tolerant of opinions different from what they are used to;

− This culture tries to have as few rules as possible,

− On the philosophical and religious level, they are relativist and allow

many currents to flow side by side.

− People within these cultures are more phlegmatic and contemplative, and

not expected by their environment to express emotions.

• Long-term Orientation (LTO): (Versus Short-term Orientation (STO)). This

fifth dimension can be said to deal with ‘Virtue regardless of Truth’.

o Values associated with LTO are thrift and perseverance.

o Values associated with STO are respect for tradition, fulfilling social

obligations, and protecting one's 'face'.

2.4.4.2. Culture Classifications

A collaborative culture is described by Hari et al. (2005, 533-43) and Williams et

al. (1993, xi-15) as a means to leverage knowledge through organisational

learning, where individuals (managers, employees, team members etc.) are the

main subjects of the learning and knowledge-leveraging process. That when


- 78 -

charged with the task of promoting a more adaptive, flexible and innovative

organisational culture, it may be advantageous to:

• adopt a sharing position towards knowledge learning;

• consider and better understand the internal and external determinants of

organisational culture; its various characteristics, components and influencing

factors; and

• be aware that a collaborative culture directly influences organisational learning,

progress, competitiveness, efficiency etc.

The above therefore suggests organisations can benefit from considering a wide

range of collaborative and culture-related factors as part of their decision-making

process when delivering innovative change. Appendix B: introduces and explores

six culture classifications that may help clarify and support the above views —

subcultures, strong vs. weak cultures, innovative cultures, construction cultures,

organisational cultures and learning cultures.

2.4.5. Changing Culture

The background literature describes culture as ‘playing an important role’ in the

delivery of change within an organisation. Black and Gregersen (2002, 20-86) for

example, state ‘culture change is likely to become more, rather than less

significant. That ‘increasingly, organisations will have to treat such change, not as

a one-off discrete phenomenon, but as a continuing process which constantly

reviews, refines and improves the organisation’s overall capacity to respond to

external developments’. In support of these views, a number of culture change

methods, themes and approaches are reviewed next.

2.4.4.1. Culture Change Methods

Maull et al. (2001) state organisations will change only as far and as fast as their

collective individuals are willing to change, because people are and always will

be ‘instinctively programmed’ to resist any form of change. There is an array of


- 79 -

analytical frameworks, methods and approaches used to bring about a change in

culture within organisations. Whether at an individual, team or organisational

level, the various culture change models, methods and approaches in Appendix

C: highlight the importance of a number of key considerations worth considering

when delivering innovative change within organisations - all of which portray the

true and varying essence of events that tend to accompany the process of

change.

2.4.4.2. Culture Change Themes

To help better understand the culture of an organisation, White and Bruton (2007,

16-165, 243-57, 393) suggest organisations familiarise themselves with the four

main themes of culture change - thereby encapsulating the origin of its culture

and the challenges this presents when attempting to deliver change (Table 2-9):


- 80 -

Table 2-9: Main Culture Change Themes

FOUR CULTURE CHANGE THEMES

DESCRIBED

1. Learned Entity

This culture is taught as ‘the correct way to behave’ which results in the ‘perpetuation

of organisational survival and growth’.

2. Belief Systems

Two fundamental beliefs form part of this culture theme:

• Guiding belief: ‘nitty-gritty’ beliefs about everyday life that rarely change, as they

are in the ‘realm of universal truth’ and provide direction to the daily beliefs; and

• Daily beliefs: ‘rules and feelings’ of everyday behaviour, continuously changing to

match context.

3. Strategic Planning

‘Strategic planning’ is defined as:

• The process that lays the groundwork and future direction of an organisation. A

typical outcome of this would be in a written format (report or document), Grisham

and Walker (2006, 217-31).

Culture change is also referred to as a strategic change, meaning that:

• The use of a separate culture change program within an organisation may fail

because a change in culture is already taking place within this formal and informal

strategic planning process.

4. Mental Programming

Mental programming themes include:

• Collective: with shared values and with no individual characteristics;

• Mental ‘software’: invisible and intangible; and

• Interesting: as it differentiates between categories of people.

2.4.4.3. Motivation and Incentives

The successful integration of change requires employees who do not suffer from

the ‘not invented here’ syndrome; who are willing to look for innovative answers

outside their immediate environment; and who are willing to share their

experiences with others, Rollett (2003, i-xii, 65-66, 209-29). They suggest that it

is these employees who stand to benefit greatly from well-structured motivation

or incentive schemes. However as noted by Von Krogh et al. (2000, i-x, 3, 5-43,

100, 292), this does not mean that all organisations will benefit from these

schemes or even be fortunate enough to hire the right kind of people who are

willing to share their experiences. According to Rollett (2003, i-xii, 65-66, 209-29),

employees will generally only dedicate themselves to a task when they are


- 81 -

convinced (Section 2.1.3.4), or when they trust that what they are doing matters

to, or is recognised by, their superiors (Section 2.4.5.3.4).

2.4.5.3.1. Learning Motivators

The discussion about Learning Culture in Section 2.4.4 leads to the notion that

different incentives address different ‘intrinsic’ and ‘extrinsic’ motivators (Table

2-10) of a learning culture (Section 2.1.3.4). Although they may not have an

immediate effect, Robinson et al. (2005, 431-45) states the two do accelerate the

behaviour of change within an organisation over time:

Table 2-10: Learning Motivators

LEARNING MOTIVATORS

Intrinsic Usually more important than extrinsic motivators. Predominantly intangible, and tend to include,

for example:

• providing opportunities for employees to learn through challenging work assignments;

• allowing them to work with experts (thereby benefiting from human contact, enhanced

meaning and self-realisation etc.);

• ensuring employees obtain constant and constructive feedback from trainers, coaches and

mentors; and / or

• introducing attractive on-the-job-rotation schemes (gaining enhanced knowledge and

experience etc.).

Extrinsic According to ALLPM (2006, 1-3) these are generally easier to implement and manage, and

comprise more ‘tangible’ motivators such as:

• monitory or financial incentives (pay rises, bonuses, allowances etc.);

• long-term stability and security (pensions, medical etc.); and

• items of prestige (attractive office space, dedicated parking etc.).

2.4.5.3.2. Motivation Strategies and Beliefs

To assist in creating a positive environment in an organisation during the delivery

of change, Robinson et al. (2005, 431-45) recommend employing one or a

combination of eight motivation strategies tabulated in Table 2-11:


- 82 -

Table 2-11: Motivational Strategies

EIGHT STRATEGIES MOTIVATIONS DESCRIBED

1. ‘What motivates me will motivate

others’

• Assuming that everyone wishes to be treated in the same way that they

themselves would like to be treated - one should not assume what

motivational approach team members prefer — they must ask.

2. ‘People are motivated

primarily by

money’

• Valid for many people but does not explain the full range of human motivation;

such as personal acknowledgements, achievements, recognition and the

opportunity to work in a productive work environment (facilitating the

development of new skills and competencies).

3. ‘Team members

love to receive formal awards’

• The majority of team members value a formal reward to note a specific

achievement (Section 2.4.5.3.3).

• Unfortunately, awards are often presented somewhat cynically. For example,

a team member being selected to receive an award for reasons other than

accomplishments (company politics, political correctness etc.)

• Allowing team members to vote for the recipient of an award is more likely to

be a motivating force, where the award is not created to mask another hidden

or organisational issue.

4. ‘Give them a rally slogan’

• Slogans can help define team member focus and purpose. However, when

over used this may ‘backfire’, often ‘…turning the message behind the slogan

into a sham’, which inevitably has a ‘… patronising effect on many self-

directed professionals’.

5. ‘The best

project manager

/ leader = strong

cheerleader’

• Similar to the use of slogans, and although mostly positive, the over use of

‘cheerleading’ should be avoided.

• The best way to motivate a team member is to let team members come up

with their own inspiration for their actions, ‘… free from outside cheerleading’.

6. ‘People are

professionals and don’t need

motivating’

• Although most project professionals are self-motivating and ‘follow an inner

drive that leads to achievement and productivity’, most benefit from

occasional outside sources of motivation (especially on long / complex

projects).

7. ‘Motivate when

there is a

problem’

• Where the ‘no news is good news analogy’ is taken too far, most people do

not tell others when motivation begins to suffer unless the level of motivation

is seriously low.

• This should be a proactive motivating approach rather than waiting for

motivation issues to surface.

8. ‘Treat everyone the same — it is

preferred’

• Treat everyone in the same way on issues of basic fairness and performance

standards. However, recognise each team member as an individual,

especially when creating strategies to motivate each team member.


- 83 -

2.4.5.3.3. Rewards and Compensation

Von Krogh et al. (2000, i-x, 3, 5-43, 100, 292) and ALLPM (2006, 1-3) concur,

incentive and reward schemes are one of the ‘critical success factors’ necessary

to encourage acceptance towards a newly proposed solution, and where

traditional forms of compensation and organisational hierarchy no longer

motivate people sufficiently for them to develop the strong relationships or high

levels of commitment required for the successful delivery of, for example,

innovative change.

‘Different things motivate different people differently at different times’.

Grisham and Walker (2006, 217-31)

To help develop stronger relationships and increased levels of commitment,

Rollett (2003, i-xii, 65-66, 209-29) suggest introducing one or more tangible

rewards, including paid lunches for those who provide positive contributions,

advanced training, paid leave etc. Related reward mechanisms by Von Krogh et

al. (1998, i-xiv, 8, 25, 84, 123, 223-90) tend to motivate individuals who have a

mixed set of needs that include recognition and self-fulfilment, and include:

• Rewarding Groups: Focussing only on individual performances can be a barrier

to the overall performance of a team or group. Incentives therefore need to be

tied to the goals of a team or group in such a way that individuals can

contribute towards the overall goal or objective, but are unable to complete it

without contributions from other group members.

• Communicating Attitudes: An informal attempt to foster innovative behaviours

within an organisation achieved by communicating required attitudes to

employees by introducing, for example, ‘playful approaches’ such as points,

targets, gadgets, toys etc.

• Regular Feedback: Used to ensure continued acceptance, whereby all internal

and external participants (including clients, partners, key stakeholders etc.)

receive regular feedback and updates.


- 84 -

2.4.5.3.4. Trust and Willingness to Commit

Construction industry employees accumulate a wealth of information, knowledge

and experience pertaining to their jobs, tasks, and activities on projects. Although

these valuable qualities essentially determine their individual and accumulated

levels of efficiency and productivity within their work environments, they are often

still reluctant (for various reasons), to share these with other internal and external

organisational and / or project team members.

The concept of trust, according to Walker (2004, 13), has received considerable

attention in recent years ‘stressed to be of major importance in the contemporary

economy’. Further arguing that in order to ensure the wellbeing of today’s

business relationships, trust should be a central matter, with its roles and

functions regarded as fundamental for today’s organisations. Von Krogh et al.

(2000, i-x, 3, 5-43, 100, 292) views trust and willingness to commit as being

influenced by an organisation’s as well as by an individual’s cultural values,

where the level of concern for people issues within an organisation is often

represented by the balance achieved between competition and cooperation

(Section 2.1.3.4).

As organisations continuously need to evolve, down-size, restructure, or expand

in order to survive in today’s highly competitive and mistrusting business arena,

Zweig and Brodt (2006) notes they also need to ‘revitalise’ their most valuable

resource — their non-collaborative workforce. Robbins (1998, 138-86, 347, 595-

98, 601-46) note that dealing with these ‘pitfalls of secrecy’ and lack of trust,

inevitably result in employees having to regularly deal with vague, incomplete, or

conflicting instructions, advice and information on how, whom, when or what

should and should not be disclosed or done.

According to Zweig and Brodt this disinclined attitude toward trust and reluctance

to share knowledge and experiences can lead to hostile and non-collaborative


- 85 -

work environments where managers, employees and team members keep to

themselves and become steadfast gatekeepers of their valuable knowledge and

expertise. This reinforces earlier discussions in Section 2.1.5.5 where the need

for knowledge-sharing philosophy is emphasised.

2.5. Leadership

The fifth dynamic to consider as part of the decision-making process when

delivering innovative change is that of leadership. This section defines the term

leadership and further investigates various leadership characteristics, actions,

initiatives, and challenges associated with leading the delivery of innovative

change within construction industry organisations.

2.5.1. Leadership Defined

Definitions of leadership are frequent, inconsistent and sometimes contradictory,

yet most tend to agree that leadership involves a certain level of influence, albeit

with the use of some form of authority, reward, punishment or threat over others.

The definition for ‘leadership’ is diverse:

‘… the ability to influence a group toward the achievement of goals’

Robbins (1998, 138-86, 347, 595-98, 601-46)

‘… the art of getting things done through others’

Schein (1997, 12-15, 299)

‘…about coping with change.’ Kotter (2001)

The source of ‘influence’ referred to in the above definition by Robbins is in most

cases formal in nature through; for example, securing a managerial role in an

organisation, team or project. Further stating that this tends to be a managerial

role which comes with some degree of authority (over one or more employees),

which in some cases can result in the newly appointed manager ‘assuming’ a


- 86 -

leadership role, justified only by the position held and not by his or her leadership

qualities or experience.

Although the literature is inconclusive about whether or not a leader’s qualities

and effectiveness are reliant on the formal authority assumed within a

management role, there is a general consensus towards White and Bruton (2007,

16-165, 243-57, 393) statement that ‘not all leaders are managers, nor for that

matter, are managers all leaders’. Further suggesting the informal or non-

sanctioned leaders within a group or team (outside the formal influence of a

manager’s position of authority), are better and more effective in leading a group

or team. This is due to their efficiency in influencing and motivating others, and

by reason of their natural abilities in cultivating common values, attitudes and

beliefs (culture) towards achieving a common goal or objective.

2.5.2. Common Leadership Characteristics

Organisations that are identified by White and Bruton (2007, 16-165, 243-57,

393) as being successful in managing the delivery of change, are said to have

clearly identified leaders and dedicated champions who undertake the following

common activities:

• objectively assess the organisation’s position on the ‘Technology / Innovation

Progress S-curve’ (Figure 2-12), essentially representing the life cycle of an

invention or innovative initiative;

• assess the strengths and weaknesses of existing resources and current /

traditional management approach;

• establish separate funds for innovative undertakings;

• set realistic expectations, priorities and milestones;

• undertake periodic reviews of informal proposals by individuals or group

outside management lines;

• demonstrate clear direction;

• undertake extensive boundary-spanning activities to learn from others and to

gain a better understanding of what others do (Sections 2.1.5.5 and 2.4.5.3.4);


- 87 -

• develop a supportive environment and infrastructure for exploring variations,

taking advantage of potential opportunities, and facilitate appropriate

resources; and finally

• ‘savour every victory and learn from every failure’.

Adapted from White and Bruton (2007, 16-165, 243-57, 393)

Figure 2-12: Technology / Innovation Progress S-curve

In line with the Implementation Checklist discussed in Section 2.3.3, McDermott

and O'Dell (2001, 76-77) and White and Bruton (2007, 16-165, 243-57, 393)

suggest regularly reviewing and testing the environment of an organisation, by for

example examining and better understanding the issues raised by senior

managers, employees, team members and other key stakeholders influenced by

the delivery of change.

Invention

Tech

nolo

gy /

Inno

vatio

n Pe

rfor

man

ce P

aram

eter

Time

High Profit

Improvement Decline

EMBRYONIC GROWTH MATURITY AGING

1. I

nclu

des

the

inve

ntio

n an

d th

e ap

plic

atio

n of

the

inve

ntio

n th

roug

h in

nova

tion

2. I

mpr

ovem

ents

are

mad

e in

the

use

and

proc

ess

of th

e te

chno

logy

3.

Hig

h pr

ofita

bilit

y is

ex

perie

nced

if p

hase

one

and

tw

o w

ere

man

aged

su

cces

sful

ly

4. D

urin

g th

e fin

al p

hase

ther

e is

a

decl

ine

in th

e ut

ility

of t

he

tech

nolo

gy. T

he te

chno

logy

is

eith

er re

vive

d / u

pgra

ded

or

mad

e ob

sole

te

Four Stages

‘Inception’


- 88 -

2.5.3. Leadership Actions

Three leadership actions identified by Robbins (1998, 138-86, 347, 595-98, 601-

46) may be considered to help achieve the goals and objectives of delivering

innovative change in an organisation:

• Create and Maintain a Positive Environment: Clearly indicate an organisation’s

strategic direction, vision and mission and then champion the delivery process

by ‘leading by example’:

o Ensure adequate information and experience is made available during the

decision-making process, minimising frustration and incorrect or costly

decisions being made.

o Develop and ‘fine tune’ their leadership skills so that employees and team

members are able to experience the growth opportunities they need or

expect.

o Empower employees through delegation by promoting, for example, clear

support and dedication during the delivery process.

o Accept a certain level of failure when promoting enhanced levels of trust

among employees, thereby allowing them to learn from their experiences

and mistakes, and to progress as individuals.

• Create Mechanisms for Innovation: Establish and employ processes,

frameworks and systems that will support innovative undertakings, and ensure

that experimentation; risk-taking and difference of perception are not viewed

as threats or hazards, but as opportunities.

• Allocating Adequate Resources: Identify resources upfront (such as time,

money, people, tools, equipment, infrastructure etc.); and then properly

allocate these to the correct and achievable tasks and / or action items.

2.5.4. Leadership Approach

The above leadership actions are echoed in Paulson (1995) and summarised in

Table 2-12, highlighting the main features of six leadership approaches towards


- 89 -

improved decision-making and the reduction of employee resistance to the

delivery of change.

Paulson (1995) supports these views and findings by reinforcing the need to

maintain openness and honesty throughout the planning, design, development

and delivery process (Section 2.4.5.3.4). That organisations may also benefit

from encouraging participatory planning of employees, end users and other key

stakeholders when defining delivery goals, objectives etc. (Section 2.1.4.5). That

managerial support and involvement should also be evident from the beginning

through to the end of the planning, delivery and application process.

Williams et al. (1993, xi-15) further suggests delivery goals and objectives of, for

example, innovative change should be clearly understood and viewed positively

by all involved or affected by that delivery. Where, overall benefits are maximised

and promoted; and that all efforts are made to coordinate these goals and

objectives with the goals and objectives of the organisation. Finally, there also

needs to be adequate education and training opportunities (Section 2.6), as well

as positive incentives (Section 2.1.3.5) for employees and other key stakeholders

(end users) to help ensure the effective utilisation of innovative change.


- 90 -

Table 2-12: Six Leadership Approaches

SIX LEADERSHIP APPROACHES

DECISION TO HELP REDUCE EMPLOYEE RESISTANCE

1. Education and Communication

• Resistance towards change fuelled by misinformation and poor or inadequate

communication can be reduced through better communicating the logic of a

change process with employees.

• If employees are provided with all the facts, benefits and reasons for changing

the existing ways of doing things, and misunderstandings or misconceptions

are removed, then resistance will diminish.

2. Participation • Allowing employees to participate in a change decision (subject to being able

to provide a meaningful contribution) will increase commitment levels, and

increase the quality and sustainability of its application (Section 2.1.4.5).

3. Facilitation and Support

• Providing support in the form of new skills training (Section 2.6), counselling,

short paid leave etc.

• This approach has a tendency to be costly, time consuming and provides no

guarantee of success.

4. Negotiation and Reward

• Negotiate the exchange tailor-made reward packages, promotions, or other

tangible and intangible incentives that meet individual needs (Sections 2.1.3.4

and 2.1.3.5).

• This also has a tendency to be costly, time consuming and provides no

guarantee of success.

5. Manipulation and Co-optation

• ‘Co-optation’ is a form of both manipulation and participation, seeking to buy

off resisting group leaders by giving them a key role in the change decision

and in turn, to get their endorsement — ‘twisting and distorting facts to make

them appear more attractive, withholding undesirable information, and creating

false rumours to get employees to accept a change … are all examples of

manipulation.’

• To be aware that these tactics and their credibility can ‘boomerang’ on them if

resistance group leaders discover that they are being tricked or used (Section

2.7.4).

6. Coercion • This is a direct threat or force placed upon any resistors of change.

• Threatening tactics include reduction of pay, perks or privileges; threats of

transfer; loss of promotion; negative performance evaluations; and poor letter

of recommendation.


- 91 -

2.5.5. Changing Leaders

Echoing comments by Carucci and Pasmore (2002) in Section 2.4.4.1, Robinson

et al. (2005, 431-45) state the most significant change in culture and sub-cultures

within an organisation occurs when leaders either embark on a personal course

of action during the change process or when there is a change in leadership that

causes a new culture to be created or an existing culture to be altered.

This notion is also supported by Schein (1997, 12-15, 299), stating the simple

introduction of a new leader is a highly influential driver of change. This is

because new leaders usually bring with them new and innovative ideas, ‘recipes

for successes’, fresh visions for the future, and past experience. Foresight (2000)

agrees, the introduction of a new leader who is conscious of and understands the

cultures and sub-cultures of organisations, tends to ensure a more successful

and permanent change in an organisation’s, group’s or team’s culture.

2.5.6. Creating a Culture of Collaboration

As suggested in Section 2.1.5.5 and Section 2.4.5.3.4, organisations that

continuously promote a cooperative philosophy in the workplace; and that

encourage their employees to embrace a culture of trust and collaboration, tend

to realise enhanced levels of success (in comparison to those that don’t) in the

delivery of a new or improved way of ‘doing something’. Therefore, it would be

advantageous for organisations to ensure that leaders who are responsible for

leading and coordinating the delivery of change, have the necessary skill set and

levels of experience to:

• create and maintain a collaborative environment;

• to allow all key stakeholders to be creative within their own areas of expertise;

• openly share (without ridicule) any knowledge, experiences or value-adding

suggestions that may contribute towards achieving enhanced levels of

success.


- 92 -

2.6. Training and Education

The sixth dynamic to consider as part of the decision-making process when

delivering innovative change is that of training and education. This section

emphasises the essential need for senior management to facilitate adequate

(internal and external) training and education platforms that encourage lifelong

learning, ongoing development, and promote the active creation, accumulation

and sharing of knowledge and experiences pertaining to the effective delivery

and application of innovative change within current and future work environments

(organisations).

2.6.1. Delivery Mechanisms

To meet an organisation’s learning, training and development requirements,

Grisham and Walker (2006, 217-31) emphasise the need for ‘cross-disciplinary’

education and for the construction industry to re-think the way its trainers and

educators are currently acquiring and delivering its new skill sets.

‘The major challenge in any environment from business to academia is the

creation of an environment that motivates the willing exchange of

information and knowledge’. Weippert (2000)

Highlighted in Kajewski et al. (2003a), and Kilby (2001), one way for trainers and

educators to enhance the delivery of these new skill sets is through, for example,

synchronised and instructor-led training systems, and through the use of

innovative yet user-friendly technologies such as online video, audio and

graphical presentations, allowing enhanced learning participation and

accessibility to a wealth of other disciplines and expertise from most global

locations. According to Von Krogh et al. (1998, i-xiv, 8, 25, 84, 123, 223-90)

higher quality online training and courseware will become, and in many cases

already is, a standard method of training.


- 93 -

‘It is the intellectual capabilities of the next generation to rebuild the

foundations of our future economies’. Cross and Baird (2000)

Lewis and Thornhill (1994) define ‘delivery mechanisms’ as ‘tools for building

relationships and facilitating the exchange of ideas among colleagues’. Although

the increased development and application of new and innovative training and

courseware ‘delivery mechanisms’ may be inevitable, their study on how to

improve performance through building organisational memory, found that one of

the main misconceptions of many of today’s trainers is that employees will

automatically prefer to use or access these new training tools to obtain new

information or knowledge. When in reality it was determined that employees are

five times more likely to turn to work colleagues for answers.

2.6.2. Action Points

In an attempt to realise some of the potential benefits of having adequate training

and education facilities for employees (Section 1.1.6), Millet (1999) suggests

lecturers, trainers and other key stakeholders alike consider one or a combination

of the following seven action points:

• Attempt to recognise and understand all levels of an organisation culture and

sub-cultures towards training including attitudes, perceptions, expectations,

fears, etc.; in order to determine, for example, how positive training attitudes

can be fostered (Section 2.4).

• Determine measurable goals for attitudes, perceptions etc. towards training as

this will help determine the extent of a training problem or task, and how to

bring about a necessary change.

• Adopt a proactive approach to the advancement of organisational training and

evaluation by promoting this approach to senior management, and by forging

links with line / project managers and other key employees and stakeholders in

order to develop a new set of organisational beliefs, values and perceptions.

• Choose a suitable culture change model (Section 2.4.4.1) and implementation

strategy (Section 2.3.1) to promote new training values and perceptions.


- 94 -

• Involve senior management, employees and other key stakeholders in the

design and delivery process of the new training initiative (Section 2.1.4.5).

• Use the Force-field Model in Section 2.4.4.1, for example; to help analyse the

required training, and how to bring about a necessary change.

• Actively and regularly evaluate the results of this hands-on training approach.

2.7. Innovative Change Delivery Process

In addition to determining what factors may influence the above six hypothesized

decision-making dynamics when delivering innovative change in an organisation

and / or across business sectors, this section examines various business and

project-related factors that may have a significant impact the overall success of

that delivery.

2.7.1. Business-related Challenges

White and Bruton (2007, 16-165, 243-57, 393) suggests organisations that ignore

the critical business elements of a delivery process (be they technical or

managerial); or fail to incorporate proactive, cost effective, or preventive actions,

will inevitably contribute towards an unsuccessful delivery process. Table 2-13

presents 12 examples of business-related factors / challenges from Millet (1999)

and Fujitsu Centre (1998) that one may encounter and inevitably have to

overcome when delivering change in an organisation.


- 95 -

Table 2-13: Business-related Barriers

TWELVE BUSINESS-RELATED BARRIERS

1. Lack of people with an overall vision for the industry

2. Fragmented and adversarial nature of the industry

3. Lack of trust among organisations — vested interest

4. Lack of shared language and knowledge in which to understand the supply chain process

5. Lack of shared / common / compatible solutions are also recognised in Millet (1999)

6. Globalisation of the economy resulting in increased competition between local contractors

7. Greater performance expectations from clients

8. Continued restructuring of work practices

9. Industrial relations and political pressures

10. Hostile company culture

11. Improper reporting structure

12. Inappropriate levels of management commitment (Section 2.1.4.4)

2.7.2. Project-related Challenges

In addition to the increased complexities of developing and managing the delivery

of change across the various business sectors of key project stakeholders,

Foresight (2000) also identifies the following project-related factors (Table 2-14)

that may influence the successful delivery of innovative change on projects:


- 96 -

Table 2-14: Project-related Challenges

ELEVEN PROJECT-RELATED CHALLENGES

1. Breakdown in communication and poor stakeholder management — recommendations or directions not

communicated or followed

2. Lack of disclosure (or understanding) of risks, uncertainties, and consequences

3. Technical or process errors or omissions

4. Accepting limited scope of work

5. Inadequate documentation

6. Lack of training, knowledge and understanding

7. Pre-occupation with the innovative solution itself during project planning

8. Technology focus dominating human relations — ‘technical fix for a management problem’

9. Poor consultation

10. Underestimation of complexity

11. Poor competency levels of stakeholders (Section 2.5)

2.7.3. The Need to Plan Ahead

Tropman (c1997) state the construction industry has always excelled at

managing complex programs and schedules, often involving groups of people

necessarily brought together for one-off projects, working in hazardous and

sometimes inhospitable locations. As a result, the industry has developed both

flexibility and good skills in problem solving. However, what it’s not so good at is

planning for the future.

‘The future of one's business is written in the decisions of today’.

Hughes et al. (2000)

When considering the delivery of innovative change within construction industry

organisations, and to help better manage various business challenges and

competitive demands, findings suggest having access to recognised industry

activity projections; such as the example presented in Figure 2-13 by


- 97 -

Construction Forecasting Council. This form of forward planning allows

organisations and other key stakeholders to effectively identify, prepare

(forecast), make informed decisions (substantiate), and respond (in time) to

innovative investment challenges, trends and opportunities that may lie ahead.

This is achieved by asking themselves, for example, ‘do we need innovative

change?’, ‘what’s in it for us?’, ‘can we deliver it?’, ‘what needs to improve or be

in place to ensure its success?’ etc.

Figure 2-13: Construction Forecast Example for Australia (2008–2015)

Therefore when industry leaders plan for major investments in innovative change

and / or want to ‘dispose’ / replace traditional (non-value-adding) undertakings,

then construction activity predictions (both short- and long-term) are to be part of

their decision-making process. That although construction industry forecasts may

be subject to levels of uncertainty (due to relying on an assortment of

suppositions); these forecasts are generally designed to help improve forward

CONSTRUCTION FORECAST FOR AUSTRALIA: 2008-2015

$-

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

YEARS

MIL

LIO

NS

Retail/Wholesale trade

Offices

Other commercial

Industrial

Educational

Health and aged care

Entertainment and recreation

Accommodation

Roads

Bridges railways harbours

Electricity pipelines

Water and sewerage

Telecommunications

Heavy industry incl. mining

‘Do we need innovative change?’

‘What’s in it for

us?’

‘Who and / or what will it affect’

‘Can we deliver

it?’

‘What has to improve or be in place to ensure

its success?’

‘One of the major challenges for managers in the knowledge economy will be figuring

out what their companies ought to know for the future’.


- 98 -

business planning, identify potential trends, and highlight investment

opportunities within relevant industry sectors.

2.7.4. ‘Camouflaged’ Delivery Process

When delivering change, organisations will arguably experience various levels of

discomfort at different stages of the delivery process. To keep these discomforts

to a minimum, and to help ensure the successful delivery of change, Kaarst-

Brown and Robey (1999) suggests that it is important not to camouflage or

disguise the true nature of the delivery. This can be achieved by, for example:

• promoting a transparent delivery process;

• having clear aims and objectives; and by

• disclosing actual benefits, challenges, risks, opportunities etc. to senior

management, employees and other key stakeholders.

This open delivery approach is supported by Buzan et al. (2009), stating that

although there are decision makers who, on the one hand may be convinced that

certain business, operational, organisational, or project team expectations can be

satisfied or enhanced through the successful delivery of change; others may still

be confronted with elevated levels of dissatisfaction and unresponsiveness

caused by varying levels of internal and external influences or pressures

(factors).

2.8. Summary: Chapter Two

The literature of six different dynamics reviewed within this chapter, those of

Change, Innovation, Implementation, Culture, Leadership, and Training and

Education, support the preliminary findings from the Background Literature

Review, in that there are a multitude of barriers, challenges, tasks, needs,

threats, opportunities etc. (factors) underpinning each of these dynamics.


- 99 -

In the construction industry, change can potentially create an environment of

turmoil, confusion and various levels of dissatisfaction, inevitably making it more

and more challenging to direct and manage. Construction industry leaders,

clients and key stakeholders can benefit from being better prepared, taking

measured risks, identifying trends and opportunities etc. (forward planning),

factors which seem to be dependent on maintaining enhanced decision-making

practices.

Unfortunately, many organisations presume to rarely have the time, inclination or

financial capacity to research and analyse (in depth) the economic, business,

technological, and/or social conditions in which their businesses operate. Not to

mention the resources to fully investigate and understand the potential benefits,

influence or missed opportunities the delivery of innovative change may have on

their future success and survival. Findings further suggest that the accuracy,

effectiveness and efficiency of a decision-making process can be hindered if the

delivery process is based (in general) on unsubstantiated, biased, unrealistic,

perceived or superficial reasoning / factors / information / traditions (‘the way

things have always been done’).

Research suggests that it is not uncommon for the decision-making process of

delivering a ‘new or improved way of doing something’ within organisations to be

challenging; often involving not only dealing with difficult technical or financial

problems, but also effectively control delicate yet highly influential personal and

political concerns. Further emphasised in the literature is the success of that

delivery being dependent on the effective management of a range of complex

and multifaceted ‘inputs’ such as:

• Acquiring the unwavering support and commitment of senior management (top

down and across), decision makers, end users and other key stakeholders

throughout and beyond the delivery process;

• Securing the supply of effective resources (financial, labour, facilities,

equipment etc.);


- 100 -

• Ensuring employees and other key stakeholders have a clear understanding of

the aims, objectives, goals etc.;

• Sustaining the intricate relationships of key stakeholders;

• Being truthful when identifying / assessing potential risks and challenges;

• Knowing the innovative change capabilities and limitations of the organisation;

• Identifying and promoting actual strengths / opportunities / benefits;

• Having effective incentive packages in place to motivate employees and other

key stakeholders (‘what’s in it for me’);

• Engaging proficient change leaders;

• Acknowledging that an organisation’s culture and sub-cultures can be both

driving and restraining forces;

• Using effective training and education delivery methods, models and

frameworks that will maximise the opportunities of employees and other key

stakeholders in realising the potential benefits of innovative change.

Similar to the preliminary findings from the Background Literature Review, the

undertaking of a more comprehensive Literature Review for each of the six

dynamics and their underlying factors found little evidence of an all-

encompassing framework that measures the above factors (‘inputs’) all of which

tend to challenge the decision-making process for delivering innovative change in

an organisation.

To help resolve this issue, the further development of a CDF for delivering

innovative change within construction industry organisations is suggested – one

that comprises of various influencing factors and sub-factors that underpin each

of the six hypothesised decision-making dynamics. The identification and further

development of these are discussed in greater detail in Chapter Three.

Chapter Three – Mind Mapping Decision-Making Factors

- 101 -

3. CHAPTER THREE: MIND MAPPING DECISION-MAKING FACTORS

The Background (Chapter One) and the more comprehensive Literature Review

(Chapter Two) exposed a range of factors for each of the six hypothesised

dynamics. Mind mapping was used to develop and analyse these to help

determine the relevancy of the dynamics (overall) as being key components of a

CDF for delivering innovative change in organisations.

3.1. Validating the Use of Mind Mapping

According to Russell (2008), the basic concept of mind mapping has been

around for centuries and used across the globe as a learning, brainstorming,

memory, visual thinking, and problem-solving process by educators, researchers,

businesses, engineers and psychologists. In Buzan, Peneder (2008, 518-30)

further defines mind mapping as ‘the ultimate organisational thinking tool [and]

the easiest way to ‘map out’ [one’s] thoughts’. Other leading publications that

provide further evidence on the effectiveness and reliability of mind mapping are

summarised in Table 3-1:


- 102 -

Table 3-1: Validating the Use of Mind Mapping

AUTHOR USING THE MIND-MAPPING APPROACH

1. Noel (2009) • With the aim to enhance the mutual awareness and coordination

of policy makers (in terms of technology and corporate finance),

this paper:

o reviews the major finance-related causes of private under

investment in innovation; and

o reports on the use of mind mapping to determine alternative

choices for public innovation policy.

2. Smithin (1980, 24-28) • A paper on developing new category of tools known as CAI

(computer-aided innovation) that can assist innovators, inventors,

designers, process developers and managers in their creative

performances in computer-aided technologies.

• Further highlighting how the development of these CAI methods

and tools are partially inspired by various ‘Innovation Theories’ -

including mind mapping.

3. Evrekli et al. (2009, 2274-79) • A paper describing mind mapping as a ‘process’ enabling

managers to reflect on ‘experiences in a reasonably systematic

way’; that generates and shares ‘fresh thinking’ around an issue,

which can then be relatively easily explored or changed.

4. Kokotovich (2008, 49-69) • Mind maps were effectively used in analysing applications in

special constructive science and technology teaching method

courses to help students at different stages of learning.

5. Anderson (1993, 41-46) • This paper investigates and discusses:

o why mind mapping tools are useful as design tools when

introduced to a group of first-year industrial design students;

and

o how mind-mapping techniques can guide novice designers

in adopting the design problem-solving processes /

framework of expert designers.

6. Illumine Training (2008) • A paper on the benefits of an organisation using a mind-map

model to break through an employee’s ‘wall of rationality’ /

‘intellectual wall’ that surrounds and restrains his or her creative

thinking efforts when collating new ideas, solutions etc.,

• Further describing mind mapping as a ‘tangible representation of

stream-of-consciousness thinking’.


- 103 -

3.2. The Mind-mapping Process

According to Illumine Training (2008) (a leading training organisation in the

United Kingdom), a typical mind map (Figure 3-1) is often created in colour using

bold text, diagrams, a single word or text representing a unique idea, research

title, hypothesis, or topic of discussion placed in the centre of the mind map

(referred to as the ‘node’). Relevant, important and / or supporting ideas, key

words, notes, phrases, concepts etc. (dynamics, factors and sub-factors) are

then inserted ‘radically’ (without implied prioritisation) around the ‘node’,

essentially branching out from the centre.

Adapted from Fellows and Liu (2003, 28-32, 44, 91-97)

Figure 3-1: Example of How to Create a Mind Map

The structure that should develop will be a ‘radiant hierarchy’ with ideas radiating out from your central themes and main branches

THE ‘NODE’

FACTORS

Wherever possible use single key words,

printed along a line (each on its own line)

SUB-FACTORS

Possible Connection / Link / Relationship between two Factors or Sub-factors

START at the centre (NODE) of a blank page

Ideally with a colourful image or unique phrase to represent your topic / subject

Use words & pictures

Throughout the Mind MapDYNAMICS

The lines make the association between ideas as clear as

possible.

Make them flowing and organic, each line the same length as the word or image.

SUB-FACTORS

Always ensure the lines connect to the end of the line at the previous level. Typically lines will be thicker at the centre and thinner further out

FACTORS Experiment with different ways of linking & emphasising deferent aspects. Use highlighters, codes and arrows as necessary


- 104 -

3.3. Relevant Factors and Sub-factors for each Dynamic

Using the mind-mapping process, a number of influencing ‘decision-making

factors and sub-factors’ were identified for each of the six dynamics (Figure 3-2).

A detailed representation of the mind map results is presented in Appendix D:

Figure 3-2: Mind-Mapping Approach — Identifying Decision-making Factors

and Sub-factors

Training & Education

Decision-m

aking Factors

SIX ‘SETS’ OF HYPOTHESISED

DECISION-MAKING

FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS FOR EACH OF

THE SIX DECISION-MAKING

DYNAMICS

Cul

ture

D

ecis

ion-

mak

ing

Fact

ors

Cha

nge

D

ecis

ion-

mak

ing

Fact

ors

Innovation D

ecision-making Factors

Implem

entation D


Leadership D


5

4

3

2

6 1

Hypothesised Decision-making Factors /

Sub-Factors

Six Hypothesised Decision-making

Dynamics

Hypothesised Decision-making Factors /

Sub-Factors

Possible Connection / Link / Relationship between Factors

or Sub-factors

Possible Connection / Link / Relationship between Factors

or Sub-factors

‘NODE’

MIND MAPPING THE SIX HYPOTHESISED DECISION-MAKING DYNAMICS


- 105 -

Figure 3-3 shows the hierarchical relationship between the dynamics, factors and

sub-factors within the final mind map (Figure 3-2), and discussed further in

Chapter Five.

Figure 3-3: Relationships between Dynamics, Factors and Sub-factors

To determine if the six hypothesised dynamics are key components of a CDF, the

Background (Chapter One) and the more comprehensive Literature Review

(Chapter Two) exposed a range of factors for each dynamic (Figure 3-4). The

subsequent six sets of factors and sub-factors for each of the dynamics were

then rephrased as closed and open-ended questions / statements (Table 3-2) to:

• clarify, better define and enhance the context of the six dynamics (in terms of

the research aim and objectives); and

• allow for a panel of senior building and construction industry members to more

accurately assess the relevancy of the six dynamics as being key components

within a CDF.

NOTE: • Relevance rate of each dynamic is based on the mean rate of

its underlying factors and sub-factors • For the purpose of this research all factors and sub-factors

have equal weighting

DYNAMIC

FACTOR

FACTOR

FACTOR

SUB-FACTOR

SUB-FACTOR

SUB-FACTOR

SUB-FACTOR

SUB-FACTOR

SUB-FACTOR

SUB-FACTOR

SUB-FACTOR

SUB-FACTOR

DYNAMIC

FACTOR

FACTOR

FACTOR

SUB-FACTOR

SUB-FACTOR

SUB-FACTOR

SUB-FACTOR

SUB-FACTOR

SUB-FACTOR

(Hyp

othe

sise

d by

this

Res

earc

h)


- 106 -

Figure 3-4: Mind Mapping Results — Six ‘Sets’ of Factors / Sub-factor

IMPLEMENTATION

CHANGE

INNOVATION

CULTURE

TRAINING AND

EDUCATION

LEADERSHIP

‘SIX ‘SETS’ OFHYPOTHESISED

DECISION-MAKING FACTORS AND SUB-

FACTORS FOR SIX DECISION-

MAKING DYNAMICS FOR DELIVERING INNOVATIVE

CHANGE WITHIN AN ORGANISATION’

2

1

3

6

5

4 3. IMPLEMENTATION FACTORS /

SUB-FACTORS: (a) Business Goals / Objectives (b) Strategies / Methods / Models /

Frameworks, etc. (c) Timing / Prioritisation /

Delegation, etc. (d) Barriers / Challenges (e) Success Factors

4. CULTURE FACTORS / SUB-FACTORS: (a) Culture Change Philosophy (b) Success Factors (c) Features / Characteristics /

Quality/ Types / Classifications

(d) Need for Culture Change (e) Work-Life Balance (f) Sub-Cultures (g) Methods / Models / Frameworks

5. LEADERSHIP FACTORS / SUB-FACTORS: (a) Leader vs. Manager (b) Human Intervention (c) New vs. Old Leaders / Champions (d) Trust & Collaboration (e) Leadership Traps (f) Regular Reviews (g) Minimise Resistance (h) Methods / Models / Frameworks

6. TRAINING & EDUCATION FACTORS / SUB-FACTORS:

(a) Learning Incentives (b) Delivery (c) Benefits (d) Good Investment? (e) Enhanced Efficiency / Productivity (f) Untrained / Uneducated

1. CHANGE FACTORS / SUB-FACTORS: (a) Need (b) Drivers (c) Barriers (d) Overcome Challenges (e) Cost vs. Timing vs. Difficulty (f) Methods / Models / Frameworks 2. INNOVATION FACTORS /

SUB-FACTORS: (a) Strategic Management (b) Types (c) Capabilities vs. Need (d) Drivers (e) Challenges / Barriers


- 107 -

Table 3-2: Key to Figure 3-4 - Six Dynamics and their Relevant Factors / Sub-Factors

SIX DYNAMICS RELEVANT FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS FOR EACH DYNAMIC

1 CHANGE

Evaluate an organisation’s

ability / flexibility towards readily

accepting and adapting to

Change itself, for example, by

evaluating the various

intricacies, challenges, drivers,

barriers, threats and

opportunities that are distinctive

to their work environment and

then responding to these issues

by identifying, recommending

and employing the most suitable

/ effective change methods,

models, frameworks etc.

(a) Need: Key factors in emphasising / reinforcing the 'need' to undergo change:

• Globalisation of the economy (offering increased business opportunities)

• Increased competition (fuelling the need to 'survive')

• Technological advancement (in areas such as software, hardware, e-systems, mobile computing, handheld products, manufacturing,

installation/erecting etc.)

• Labour shortages (causing, for example, the need to adopt advanced resource and knowledge management initiatives)

• Increased client expectations (in using, for example, new / innovative processes, systems, products, methods, materials etc.)

(b) Drivers: Identifying and then determining ways to incorporate the key factors that can help drive / convince members to readily adopt the delivery

and application process (c) Barriers: Identifying and then determining ways to overcome various forms of resistance that challenge members to readily adopt and adapt to the

delivery and application process

(d) Overcome Challenges: Having ready access to relevant, trialled and tested actions and approaches to help members overcome their inherent fear

and resisting nature towards the delivery and application process

(e) Cost vs. Timing vs. Difficulty: Ensuring the delivery and application process / strategy is:

• Timely (undertaken at a suitable / preferred point in time)

• Cost effective (efficient use of resources)

• Less 'difficult' / more 'user friendly' (greater chance of success / sustainability).

(f) Methods / Models / Frameworks: Having ready access to relevant, trialled and tested (good practice) change models, methods / frameworks to

help ensure a successful and sustainable delivery and application process



- 108 -


2 INNOVATION

Evaluate an organisation’s

ability in generating, capturing

and then applying a new idea,

solution, or new way of ‘doing

things’ (Innovation) within the

work environment, in an

attempt to enhance overall

performances and efficiencies

(a) Strategic Management: Having ready access to relevant, trialled and tested (good practice) strategic approaches, actions / methods to help better

manage / control / govern / lead / champion innovative change

(b) Types: Determining the most appropriate ‘type’ of innovation to pursue (including being familiar of all associated factors, potential business /

strategic benefits, profitability aspects, risks etc.)

(c) Capabilities vs. Need: Determining the efficiency and responsiveness of an organisation’s or project team's innovative capabilities (that is, the

ability to recognise, create and apply innovative initiatives) to verify the overall need to be more innovative or not

(d) Drivers: Identifying and then determining ways to incorporate the key factors that help drive / convince members to accelerate and revitalise their

desire in becoming more innovative

(e) Challenges / Barriers: Identifying and then determining ways to overcome key concerns that tend to challenge innovation related activities

3 IMPLEMENTATION

Identify, access, recommend,

and / or employ the most

suitable and sustainable

Implementation strategy /

process for innovative change -

one that best meets overall

strategic / business / project

aims and objectives etc.

(a) Business Goals / Objectives: Ensuring that the implementation / application process fulfils (meets) at least one or a combination of key / pre-

determined business / strategic / project goals and objectives

(b) Strategies / Methods / Models / Frameworks: Having ready access to relevant, trialled and tested (good practice) implementation strategies /

methods / models / frameworks that best serve the needs of the:

• innovative change solution or ‘new way of doing things’ itself

• organisation or project team work / social environment - that is, members, end-users and other stakeholders affected by the implementation

process (a) Timing / Prioritisation / Delegation: Ensuring the implementation and application process incorporate the following three actions:

• Timing: determining a suitable point in time for an implementation process to get underway

• Prioritisation: identifying what takes precedence before, during and after the implementation / application process

• Delegation: determining who does what (resource management) before, during and after the implementation / application process (b) Barriers / Challenges: Determining ways to overcome key concerns / contributing factors that tend to challenge the implementation process

(c) Success Factors: Determining ways to incorporate critical success factors that will help ensure a sustainable implementation / application process



- 109 -


4 CULTURE

Evaluate the distinctive and

deeply embedded culture and

sub-culture types, personalities,

characteristics, types and

classifications etc., that is,

cultural factors that tend to

‘influence’ (positively and

negatively) the delivery and

application process of innovative

change within today’s highly

competitive construction industry

arena

(a) Culture Change Philosophy: Convincing members to readily change their current / traditional ways of ‘doing things’ (culture) in order to adopt a

newer, more efficient or innovative way of ‘doing the same thing’ is challenging, due to ‘culture’ being one of the most:

• Highly influential resources in determining the sustainability (success or failure) of a delivery and application process

• Difficult and complex dynamics to identify with / define / understand / predict / control / manage (b) Success Factors: Increased levels of success in adopting a sustainable change in culture can be achieved by construction industry leaders:

• Reinforcing a relationship of ‘trust’ between co-workers, senior management, employees, and other internal / external stakeholders

• Improving office design / layout / working environments / conditions, for example, open vs. closed office layout, upgrade onsite facilities and

safety etc.

• Introducing a voluntary job or task rotation policy; for example, flexible rosters, five-day working week policy etc.

• Offering pragmatic reward and effective incentive packages

• Increasing employee / stakeholder participation in the decision making process of delivering innovative change (‘new way of doing things’) in

existing / future work environments (c) Features / Characteristics / Quality / Types / Classifications: Having ready access to relevant, trialled and tested (good practice) methods on

how to analyse the distinctive and highly influential cultural features, characteristics (perceptions, behaviour, values etc.), qualities, types and

classifications (strengths, weaknesses etc.) of an organisation, group or team to help determine the most efficient / effective way to change / adapt

/ align traditional work and social habits to a initiative or new / alternate way of ‘doing something’ (d) Need for Culture Change: To ensure the successful and sustainable delivery / application of a new or alternate ‘way of doing something’ (change)

will require the above features, characteristics, qualities, types and classifications of an existing culture (work and social undertakings of

employees) to change, that is, better aligning themselves to the 'new way of doing things'



- 110 -


4 CULTURE (Cont.)

(e) Work-life Balance: Ensuring that members of an organisation, group, or team strongly align with a suitable, sustainable and efficient ‘work-life

balance’ strategy (one that satisfies both employee and family needs and expectations) by considering; for example, flexible hours worked, health

and wellbeing (such as supply of fresh fruit in the workplace, health checks, and a greater emphasis on exercise), social gatherings (family fun

days), adventure / team-building activities etc.

(f) Sub-Cultures: (similar to Culture) Having ready access to relevant, trialled and tested (good practice) methods on how to analyse the inherent,

varying and often contradicting sub-cultures of an organisation or project team, that is, to help determine the most efficient / effective way to

change / adapt / align traditional work and social habits to a initiative or new / alternate way of ‘doing something’

(g) Methods / Models / Frameworks: Having ready access to relevant, trialled and tested (good practice) cultural ‘alignment’ / change models,

methods and frameworks to help ensure delivery / application success and sustainability



- 111 -


5 LEADERSHIP

Access, recommend, and / or

employ the most relevant,

trialled and tested models,

methods, actions, and

frameworks associated with

successfully leading /

championing the delivery and

sustained application process

of innovative change

(a) Leader vs. Manager: Realise that ‘ … not all leaders are managers, nor are managers all leaders’

(b) Human Intervention: Ensuring that a leader's / champion's 'human intervention' capabilities / experience include:

• An enhanced level of communication skill sets - personal and professional

• Being able to facilitate a positive environment of mutual assurance and success

• The ability of setting achievable business goals and objectives

• Recognising personal (employee) and other (non-human) resource capabilities / limitations

(c) New vs. Old Leaders / Champions: Considering the introduction of new (external) leaders to champion employees through the delivery /

application process due to them potentially contributing:

• Fresh / enhanced / valuable / ‘never tried before’ leadership skill sets

• Tried and tested innovative ideas, processes etc.

• Clearer (unbiased / realistic) vision / goals / objectives

(d) Trust & Collaboration: Ensure leaders / champions encourage employees to promote a sustainable 'culture’ of trust and collaboration (before,

during and after) the delivery / application process

(e) Leadership Traps: Ensure leaders / champions have ready access to past leadership ‘traps' / hints (do’s and don’ts) experienced by acknowledged

leaders / champions from both construction and other industry sectors

(f) Regular Reviews: Ensuring leaders / champions regularly and continuously (before, during and after) review and test the delivery / application

process

(g) Minimise Resistance: Ensuring leaders / champions have ready access to and incorporate relevant, tried and tested (good practice) 'approaches'

that can reduce employee resistance towards the delivery of innovative change

(h) Methods / Models / Frameworks: Ensuring leaders / champions have ready access to and incorporate relevant, tried and tested (good practice)

leadership models, methods, action lists, and frameworks to help ensure a successful delivery / application process



- 112 -


6 TRAINING AND EDUCATION

Evaluate, access, recommend,

and / or employ various key

factors that tend to drive the

essential need to facilitate

suitable training and education

environments and incentives

— ones that are attuned to

promoting employees to

willingly absorb and readily

apply their newly attained

knowledge (new way of ‘doing

things’) and experiences in

using innovative change within

their current / future work

environment (organisations).

(a) Learning Incentives: Ensuring trainers and educators offer and promote effective reward and learning incentive packages that encourage:

• Employees (students) to continue training, learning and development of skill sets

• Increased productivity levels of employees (students)

• Employees to voluntarily create, share and apply their newly attained knowledge - among other co-workers, stakeholders and work environments

(b) Delivery: Ensuring trainers and educators have ready access to, and have the required skill sets to employ the latest training and education delivery

tools (models, frameworks, action-points, ‘disciplines’ etc.), for example, using synchronised and instructor-led training systems / programs with

innovative and user-friendly video, audio and graphical presentation for geographically dispersed applications etc.

(c) Benefits: Ensuring trainers and educators recognise and continuously promote the key benefits that can be gained through improved training and

education

(d) Good Investment: Investing in the development (training / educating) of employees and project team members is a logical, worthwhile and essential

endeavour

(e) Enhanced Efficiency / Productivity: The best way for trainers and educators to improve long-term efficiencies and enhance overall productivity

levels of employees (through the effective use of innovative change) is to:

• Unlock and develop an individual employee’s (student’s) Creativity and skills

• Provide employees (students) with a suitable and professional learning / training environment / platform that enables newly acquired skill sets to

be effectively disseminated, communicated and applied within current and future work environments

(f) Untrained / Uneducated: Ensuring key employees and / or project team members are not left uneducated or untrained on how to effectively use

innovative change, that is, ensuring members of an organisation and / or project team perform to their full potential

NOTE:

The contents of Delphi Survey Questionnaire was tested and revised (in terms of content, format, consistency, importance etc) prior to its distribution. This portion of the research

is discussed at greater length in chapters Five and Six.


- 113 -

3.4. Summary: Chapter Three

This chapter outlines the mind mapping exercise that identified and extracted the

most relevant factors and sub-factors for each of the six hypothesised decision-

making dynamics.

In an attempt to determine if the six dynamics were key components of a CDF,

the six sets of factors and sub-factors were rephrased and presented as closed

and open-ended questions for a panel of senior building and construction

industry members to assess.

The following two chapters elaborate on a range of research methodologies,

styles, types and classifications that were deemed highly relevant to the

advancement of this research.

Chapter Four - Research Methodology: An Introduction

- 114 -

4. CHAPTER FOUR: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY — AN INTRODUCTION

This chapter identifies and discusses a number of research methodologies that

were considered. This is followed by a more detailed investigation into the

‘survey’ styles of research, highlighting the various strengths, weaknesses,

advantages and disadvantages of using a survey instrument; and by providing

further insight into ways to develop and distribute a standard survey instrument.

The pros and cons of employing both a qualitative and quantitative research

approach (triangulation) are also highlighted.

4.1. What is ‘Research’ and ‘Methodology’?

The literature provides a range of definitions for the terms ‘research’, ‘method’

and ‘methodology’ (see Glossary). Although there are various synonyms for the

term ‘research’ (including investigation, examination, inquiry and scrutiny), White

and Bruton (2007, 16-165, 243-57, 393) and Fellows and Liu (2003, 28-32, 44,

91-97) acknowledge that research does not occur in isolation, that it is a voyage

of discovery; a subset of invention; and the creation of new knowledge. Research

also involves the interaction of the researcher’s interest(s), the physical

environment being investigated, and that of human expertise or experiences.

Further highlighted by Fellows and Liu (2003, 28-32, 44, 91-97), is that the

strength and validity of a research undertaking also depends on a number of

factors, including the patterns and techniques employed for searching; the

location and subject material investigated; the type of analysis carried out; and

the knowledge, experience and capabilities of researcher(s).


- 115 -

4.2. Seven ‘New Knowledge’ Questions

Suggested by Amaratunga et al. (2002, 17- 31), researchers are to address

seven questions when deciding on the most appropriate method in producing

new knowledge, a research topic, or a suitable research method. To assist in

deciding on the most appropriate research method to employ, responses were

provided to these seven questions in Table 4-1.

Table 4-1: Seven ‘New Knowledge’ Research Answers

QUESTION SEVEN NEW KNOWLEDGE ANSWERS

1 What? Referring to Figure 3 1 - Process of Refining a Research Topic:

• Subject Idea: Innovative Change within the Construction Industry: The ‘subject idea’

was anchored in the hypothesis that the enhancement and continued success of most

professions goes beyond simply applying innovative change within an organisation —

- that the development of a CDF may assist in more accurately determining and

measuring an organisation’s level of ‘readiness’ / ability in delivering innovative

change.

• Inputs: Reviewing four decades of literature and case studies on related topics.

• Final Research Topic: The main objective was two-fold:

o Firstly: To assess and test the research hypothesis which entailed a literature

review and a Delphic study to determine the relevancy of six dynamics: Change,

Innovation, Implementation, Culture, Leadership, and Training and Education as

key components of a CDF for delivering innovative change within an

organisation.

o Secondly: To provide a response to the research question using a Delphi study

to identify and determine the relevancy of any additional dynamics other than

the above six.

In order to meet the above research objectives, the following hypothesis and research

question were presented to a panel of senior building and construction industry members

(Chapter Five), identified as being knowledgeable in the process of delivering change

within the construction industry arena:

• Research Hypothesis: ‘Six decision-making dynamics are necessary when delivering

innovative change within an organisation: Change, Innovation, Implementation,

Culture, Leadership and Training and Education.’

• Research Question: ‘What additional decision-making dynamics are necessary when

delivering innovative change within an organisation?’



- 116 -


2 Why? By identifying and evaluating the key dynamics of a CDF for the delivery of innovative

change within an organisation, may potentially enhance the opportunity to better access,

evaluate, recommend and / or employ:

• An organisation’s ability towards accepting change itself — that is, by being able to

evaluate the various intricacies, challenges, drivers, barriers, threats and

opportunities that are unique to their work environment and then responding to these

issues by identifying, recommending and employing the most suitable / effective

change methods, models, frameworks etc.

• An organisation’s ability in generating, capturing and then applying a new idea,

solution, or new way of ‘doing something better’ (innovation) within the work

environment – in an attempt to enhance overall performances and efficiencies

• The most suitable and sustainable implementation strategy / process — that is, one

that best meets overall strategic / business / project aims and objectives

• An organisation’s deeply embedded culture and sub-culture types, personalities,

characteristics, classifications etc. — that is, cultural factors that tend to ‘influence’

(positively and negatively) the implementation and application process of innovative

change within today’s highly competitive construction industry arena

• The most relevant, trialled and tested models, methods, actions, and frameworks

associated to leading / championing the implementation and sustainable application

of innovative change

• Various key factors that tend to drive the essential need to facilitate suitable training

and education environments and incentives — that is, ones that are attuned to

promoting employees to willingly absorb and readily apply their newly attained

knowledge (new way of ‘doing things’) and experiences in effectively utilising

innovative change within their current / future work environment

In addition to the above and outside the parameters of this research, findings also form

the foundation for the future research and development (R&D) of a sustainable

‘Innovative Change Process’ (ICP) (Chapter Eight)

3 Where? All research activities are confidentially undertaken and managed at the School of Urban

Development, Faculty of Built Environment & Engineering located within the Gardens

Point Campus of Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.

4 When? This research started early 2004 during which it had to manage and overcome various

data collection restrictions and unavoidable delays, including:

• Restrictions or delays on data availability caused by, for example, end-of-year shut-

down, public holidays etc.;

• Limited access periods etc. to industry members and / or data due to travel, work,

meeting commitments, ill health etc.; and

• The Author’s full-time work commitments during this period.



- 117 -


5 How? To determine the most appropriate methodology the following actions were considered:

• Closely matching the above to the proposed research objectives and hypothesis;

• Considering a range of styles, types and classifications - deemed highly relevant;

• Investigating all practical resources, including local and international libraries, online

data, industry members etc.; and

• Confirming availability of literature, data, industry members, etc. prior to undertaking

any data collection.

6 Whom? This research relied on four main groups of people:

• Researcher (Author);

• Principal supervisor (Professor Stephen Kajewski);

• Panel of nine senior building and construction industry members (Chapter Five)

recognised as experienced in delivering change within the construction industry

arena; as well as

• Engaging the advice of specialist data analysts, editors, publishers etc.

7 How much?

In addition to the above essential resources, funds were secured for:

• Accessing various international literatures, publications etc.;

• Gaining access to all hardware, software and administrative requirements;

• Developing, distributing and analysing two survey rounds; and

• Gaining access to industry members.

4.3. Research Types and Methods Considered

Two distinct research types by Fellows and Liu (2003, 28-32, 44, 91-97) were

considered. The first was the major or ‘primary’ method of research, which best

suited testing the research hypothesis. The ‘secondary’ or supporting research

type was considered to elaborate on or reinforce the findings of the primary

method (research question).

A combination of six research methods by Indiana University (2008) were also

considered (see Appendix E:), which include exploratory, constructive, empirical,

basic, historical and scientific.


- 118 -

4.4. Research Style: Surveying

Surveying is defined by Newsted et al. (1998) as ‘a process for gathering

information, without detailed verification, on the activity being examined’. Further

describing it as usually operating on a ‘statistical sampling’ basis, where

‘samples’ are surveyed through questionnaires or interviews and referred to as

one of the most widely used tools for economically gathering of reliable

quantitative (as well as certain verified qualitative) data.

Key features of employing the survey style of data collection were considered in

an attempt to gain a better understanding of the activity under review

(hypothesis); identify significant areas warranting special emphasis; obtain

information for performing the survey; and determine whether further surveying or

future research is necessary.

4.4.1. Surveying: Strengths and Weaknesses

As part of the decision to employ the surveying approach, the following surveying

strengths and weaknesses from Newsted et al. (1998) were also considered

(Table 4-2):


- 119 -

Table 4-2: Surveying: Strengths and Weaknesses

SURVEYING STRENGTHS SURVEYING WEAKNESSES

• Surveying is easy to administer, score and code

• It determines the values and relations of

variables and constructs

• Responses can be generalised to other (similar)

members of the population (building and

construction industry) studied

• Surveys can be easily reused, providing an

objective way of comparing responses over

different groups, times, and places

• Surveys can be used to predict behaviour

• Specific theoretical propositions can be tested in

an objective fashion

• Surveys can help confirm and quantify certain

qualitative research efforts and findings

• Surveying is simply a snapshot of behaviour,

views or undertakings at one place and time

• The research is not to assume survey results

are valid or representative in different

contexts, that is, different industry, business,

project, or individual ‘cultures’ may produce

different results

• Quantitative research results do not provide

as ‘rich’ a description of a situation / study as

that of a qualitative research

Finally, two of the most frequently used methods of distributing and gathering

survey information are identified by Fellows and Liu (2003, 28-32, 44, 91-97) as

being through mail and telephone.

4.5. Research Classifications

Although there are several methods of research available within the construction

arena, an additional two distinct ‘traditions’ or ‘classifications’ of research were

considered. According to Amaratunga et al. (2002, 17- 31), these are qualitative

and quantitative, both of which have increasingly grown in acceptance within the

construction industry arena over the last few decades.

The following provides a brief description of these two research classifications

and provides a list of strengths and weaknesses for each.


- 120 -

4.5.1. Quantitative Research Approach

Quantitative investigations look at distinguishing characteristics, properties and /

or boundaries that tend to measure the ‘who, what, where, how many, how much’

rather than the ‘why or how’ (qualitative). According to Fellows and Liu (2003, 28-

32, 44, 91-97), a quantitative investigation or process is usually directed towards

the development and / or better understanding of a testable hypotheses, theory

or framework, which can usually be ‘generalised’ across an industry sector,

project, organisation, or team member environment. They view quantitative

research as more concerned with defining the ‘truth-value’ of propositions;

allowing ‘flexibility’ in the treatment of data collected (in terms of comparative or

statistical analysis); as well as the ‘repeatability’ and ‘adaptability’ of data (in

order to verify reliability and validity).

Fellows and Liu (2003, 28-32, 44, 91-97) further confirm that a quantitative

research approach essentially involves a process of ‘making measurements’,

which can be further defined as a four-step process:

• Determine what is to be measured;

• Gather the quantifiable / ‘factual’ data;

• Study the various ‘relationships’ between these newly discovered findings;

and

• Determine how these findings relate to previous research findings, theories,

hypotheses or literature reviews.

4.5.2. Qualitative Research Approach

Conversely, a qualitative research approach is unique in that it investigates ways

of gaining a better understanding of people’s perceptions of the world. The recent

increase in the construction industry’s acknowledgment of the potential, value

and appropriateness in using a qualitative research approach is, according to

Perry (1998, 63-85), attributed to it being viewed as an effective way of getting

‘… beneath the manifestations of problems and issues [in order] to facilitate


- 121 -

appreciation and understanding of basic causes and principles… notably

behaviours’.

4.5.3. Qualitative vs. Quantitative: Strengths and Weaknesses

Table 4-4 provides a brief comparison of the strengths and weaknesses for

quantitative and qualitative research, as well as how they may influence certain

research efforts — adapted from Naslund (2002, 321-38), Amaratunga et al.

(2002, 17- 31) and Fellows and Liu (2003, 28-32, 44, 91-97):


122

Table 4-4: Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research Methodologies

STRENGTH vs. WEAKNESS

QUALITATIVE RESEARCH QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH

1. Strengths

• Data-gathering methods are seen more as ‘natural’ than ‘artificial’

• Ability to look at change processes over time; understand people’s meaning;

and adjust to new issues and ideas as they emerge

• Useful when the researcher (Author) needs to supplement, validate, explain,

illuminate, or reinterpret any quantitative data gathered

• Ability to get closer to the ‘actors’ (organisation / project team members)

perspective through detailed interviewing and observation

• Research efforts are more likely to confront the constraints of everyday life with

a ‘richer’ description of events , contributing to theory generation

• Well suited for the researcher to determine the meanings individuals place on

the event, process and structure of their ‘working’ lives, including perceptions,

assumptions, prejudgments and beliefs, etc.

• Can provide wide coverage of the range of situations

• Can be fast and economical

• Comparison and replication of data and analysis are allowable

• The researcher is independent from the subject being observed

• Subject under analysis measured through objective methods rather than

inferred subjectively through sensation, reflection or intuition

• Reliability and validity of data and its analysis may be determined more

objectively than qualitative techniques

• Strong in measuring descriptive aspects of the built environment

2. Weaknesses • Data collection, analysis and interpretation of data may be tedious for the

researcher (Author) and require additional resources

• The researcher (Author) may find it harder to control the pace, progress and

end-points of the research process

• Results may receive a low credibility from readers or assessors

• The quantitative methods used tend to be rather inflexible and artificial

• Results may not be very effective in understanding processes, reasons, or

the significance why certain members are attached to certain actions

• Results are not very helpful in generating theories

• Due to the data and its analysis focus on what is, or what has been,

findings may make it hard for the researcher to infer what changes and

actions should take place in the future

• Research efforts may tend to abstract itself from everyday life (seldom

studying it directly)


- 123 -

4.5.4. Triangulation

The effective application of both qualitative and quantitative forms of research is

much needed in the construction industry, since all research questions cannot be

solved through a single approach. Fellows and Liu (2003, 28-32, 44, 91-97)

support this argument, suggesting that research methods, classifications, styles

etc. are typically not ‘mutually exclusive’ and that researchers may adopt more

than one common research approach in order to achieve valid results or

conclusions. Consequently, for construction industry leaders and stakeholders to

potentially enhance their individual competitiveness, appropriate research

methods (both qualitative and quantitative) need to be equally considered and

then applied with rigour.

This ‘mixed’ or ‘combination’ approach referred to as a ‘triangulated’ method

(Figure 4-1) adapted from Amaratunga et al. (2002, 17- 31) and Kelle (2001), has

its effectiveness resting on the premise that the weakness of any single research

method will be compensated by the counter-balancing strengths of the other,

thereby providing a ‘multi-dimensional view’ of the subject under investigation.

Supporting comments in Naslund (2002, 321-38) offer two alternate meanings for

triangulation; namely, a process of ‘cumulative validation’ and a means to

produce a more ‘complete picture of the investigated phenomena’.

Finally, Amaratunga et al. (2002, 17- 31), Fielding and Schreier (2001), Fellows

and Liu (2003, 28-32, 44, 91-97) and Amaratunga et al. (2002, 17- 31) agree that

certain research problems are better addressed by quantitative methods, some

by qualitative methods; and some, perhaps by a combination of both methods

(triangulation).


- 124 -

Figure 4-1: Triangulation of Qualitative and Quantitative Data

4.6. Summary: Chapter Four

The following combines findings documented within this chapter to help identify

the best suited data collection and verification process.

The use of a triangulated research approach is described by Fellows and Liu

(2003, 28-32, 44, 91-97) as being a powerful technique to gain both qualitative

and quantitative insights; make certain inferences (deductions etc.); obtain

synergies; and finally draw validated conclusions, results, facts, concepts,

frameworks, proposals, recommendations etc. The ‘richness’ and ‘holism’ of

qualitative data also has strong potential for revealing and clarifying certain

research ‘complexities’, by, for example, providing vivid descriptions of ‘real-life’

experiences, which can then be combined with quantifiable ratings of certain

decision-making dynamics and / or factors pertaining to these experiences.

Theory & Literature (Previous Research)

Analysis & Testing(Statistical)

Analysis & Testing

Results(Patterns, similarities etc)

Causation / Explanation (Discussion)

Insights & Inferences

Conclusion & Recommendations

Results(Relationships)

QuantitativeData

QualitativeData


- 125 -

Further confidence in employing the triangulated approach was based on the

level of flexibility and adaptability that is customary for a qualitative study, where

the research method has to be adapted to meet new or unforeseen challenges.

Three additional reasons for linking or bridging certain qualitative information to

related quantitative data, are provided by Amaratunga et al. (2002, 17- 31) and

Carrillo and Anumba (2002, 149-61), they are:

• to enable confirmation of each set of data, thereby obtaining independent yet

mutually informative findings from two distinctly different approaches or

disciplines;

• to elaborate and / or develop supporting analysis (providing richer details) by

linking or bridging two tried-and-tested analytical formats (research methods);

• to initiate new lines of thinking by turning conventional ideas ‘upside-down’ and

‘inside-out’ in an attempt to gain fresh insights and produce innovative

solutions.

Based on the available literature at the time, the decision to adopt both a primary

and secondary research approach (Section 4.3), and to employ certain key

elements from four research methods, is presented in Table 4-5:


- 126 -

Table 4-5: Research Types and Methods Considered

PRIMARY

(Identified as the Major Research Type and best suited for this research)

1. Empirical • The empirical research type was chosen as best suited to ‘test the feasibility’

of the research hypothesis (Chapter One).

• Research findings were based on accurately identifying, describing and then

testing (through the use of survey instruments) the hypothesis - in turn

providing better understanding of any relations among the proposed decision-

making dynamics, factors and variables.

SECONDARY

(In addition to the Empirical research method, it was decided to incorporate certain features / elements from

the following three research methods)

2. Constructive • This method objectively argues and defines certain research findings and

conclusions (based on the analytical correlations of the data collected) - in turn

providing enough background information required to recommend further

research into the future development of an ICP (Chapter Eight).

3. Basic • Similar to the constructive research method, findings and outcomes from this

‘exploratory’ research, which is driven by research hypothesis (Chapter One),

provides the foundation for undertaking further research beyond the scope of

this research.

4. Historical • Historical quantitative and qualitative data is highly influential and beneficial.

Subsequently, Chapter Five elaborates on the dissemination of two

consecutive Delphi Survey Questionnaires, where a panel of senior building

and construction industry members were asked to:

o identify, assess and agree (reach a consensus / stability in responses) on

what decision-making dynamics need to be considered when delivering

innovative change within an organisation work environment;

o respond to the relevancy of people behaving in a certain way; and

o provide ratings pertaining to certain innovative change theories,

suggestions, decision-making dynamics, factors etc.

By adhering to the research types, approaches and methods described in Table

4-5, and in an attempt to maximise the probability of realising the overall

objective of this study (Chapter One), surveying was identified as being the most

appropriate, cost-effective and efficient research style to adopt. Incorporating the

surveying style is also a critical element of the Delphi Technique elaborated on in

chapters Five and Six.


- 127 -

In summary, the methods deemed most appropriate for meeting the research aim

and objectives were to:

• apply a triangulated (combined qualitative and quantitative) data assessment

approach;

• adopt both a primary and secondary research method;

• employ a combination of certain key elements from four research methods

(exploratory, constructive, empirical, basic and historical); and

• incorporate a surveying research data collection and verification process.

Chapter Six – The Delphi Technique

- 128 -

5. CHAPTER FIVE: THE DELPHI TECHNIQUE

This chapter provides a background and a comprehensive outline of the primary

and most appropriate data collection and verification process employed — that of

the Delphi technique. It further outlines the Delphi process used for the

development and progression of the Delphi Survey Questionnaire; introduces the

panel of industry experts who volunteered to take part in the Delphi study;

presents the response options (ratings) that the panel of industry experts could

allocate to the various questions, statements etc. (factors) of the Delphi Survey

Questionnaire; and discusses meeting the ethics requirements of QUT’s Office of

Research.

5.1. Background

As stated by Fellows and Liu (2003, 28-32, 44, 91-97), the construction industry

delivers large, expensive, custom-built facilities involving large numbers of

geographically dispersed stakeholder organisations and individuals. It is therefore

argued that research within this dynamic and complex environment can be

volatile. It is further argued that today’s competitive arena requires construction

industry organisations to continuously investigate, apply, adapt and use existing,

new and / or innovative qualitative and quantitative research tools, applications,

methods, concepts and processes to ‘stay ahead of the game’. This evolving

research environment can be a dynamic process, where flexibility, variation and

adaptability are not uncommon.

Arguably, whatever final or overall methodology is adopted, it is essential that the

‘… validity and applicability of results and conclusions are appreciated and


- 129 -

understood’ and that any limitations of the methodology and conclusions drawn

from it are considered. Fellows and Liu (2003, 28-32, 44, 91-97) further state, by

considering both the nature of the data and investigative methods used, the

research path within a construction industry environment (organisation, team,

project etc.) is typically in unison with three distinct dynamics (Figure 5-1);

namely, a coherent and complementary research plan, goal, design or objectives;

a comprehensive data collection framework; and an extensive and all

encompassing data analysis process.

Adapted from Andrews and Allen (2002)

Figure 5-1: Three Construction Industry Research Dynamics to Consider

Adhering to these three research dynamics in turn may ensure that the results,

findings and conclusions of a research initiative within the construction industry

are critically robust.

Thus, to meet the research aims and objectives outlined in Chapter One; and by

adhering to the research methodology findings, arguments and recommendations

outlined in Chapter Four, further investigation was made into the Delphi study.

RESEARCH DYNAMICS TO CONSIDER

WITHIN A CONSTRUCTION

INDUSTRY ENVIRONMENT

RESEARCH PLAN

DATA COLLECTION FRAMEWORK

DATA ANALYSIS PROCESS


- 130 -

This resulted in it being regarded as the most appropriate data collection and

verification process.

5.2. Why Delphi?

According to Sharp (c1997), using the Delphi process is appropriate when:

• there is an emotionally charged situation;

• a decision is opinion based;

• there is a need for expert input (by those not in a central location); and / or

• better results (of unbiased responses) may be achieved if the group of experts

did not meet face-to-face.

In line with the above, Linstone and Murray (1975) states the Delphi technique is

‘best suited’ to problems that require evaluative, qualitative answers rather than

precise, quantitative results; and generally most useful for assembling groups of

experts who would otherwise probably never come into contact. Table 5-1

outlines why the Delphi technique was best suited.

Table 5-1: Reasons to use the Delphi Technique

THREE RESEARCH ‘SITUATIONS’ OR ‘CONSTRAINTS’

JUSTIFICATION IN USING THE DELPHI TECHNIQUE

1. Opinion-based Decisions This research mandates the collection and analysis of personal

opinions, knowledge and experiences from a select panel of senior

building and construction industry members (Chapter Five)

2. Location of Experts The panel members are geographically dispersed across Australia

and located in three major cities

3. Unbiased Responses To ensure the validity and unbiasedness of survey responses,

decision, suggestions, opinions, ratings etc.; panel members are

discouraged to have face-to-face meetings

Aligned with the above deciding factors, Stuter (1999) confirm that only one of

the six dynamics in Table 5-2 have to be met in order to justify the ‘need’ for

employing the Delphi technique. Five of the six dynamics have been identified as


- 131 -

being highly relevant for justifying the employment of the Delphi technique as the

overall research methodology.

Table 5-2: Six ‘Justifying’ Dynamics for Employing the Delphi Technique

SIX ‘JUSTIFYING’ DYNAMICS RELEVANT

TO THIS RESEARCH?

1. The problem (research hypothesis, topic, area etc.) does not lend itself to precise

analytical techniques, benefiting rather from subjective judgments on a collective

basis (group of experts)

YES

2. The group of experts that are required to contribute to the examination of a broad

issue or complex problem are geographically dispersed or have diverse

backgrounds with respect to experience, opinion or expertise

YES

3. More individuals are required than can effectively be arranged to interact in a face-

to-face environment (face-to-face meeting or workshop) YES

4. Time and / or cost constraints YES

5. When disagreements or variances between certain individuals within the group of

experts are so severe or politically intolerable that the communication process must

be refereed

NO

6. The diversity, identity or contributions of the group of experts must be preserved

(anonymity) to assure validity of results, thereby avoiding confidentiality issues and

minimising the influence of dominant personalities and evading the sheep effect

YES

Based on the above literature, it is suggested that the use of the Delphi

Technique is also best suited where little quantitative data on a subject, topic or

problem exists, and as such a practical and effective method of answering expert

questions, and determining or clarifying various value-adding ‘unknowns’.

5.3. Delphi Origin

Andrews and Allen (2002) and Stuter (1999) state the oracle of the Delphi

technique is not a new research concept. According to Andrews and Allen

(2002), the technique was initially ‘a way to obtain the opinion of experts without

necessarily bringing them together face to face’; and in line with Illinois Institute

of Technology (IIT) (c1996), originated as far back as the 1950s where the

American Air Force funded Rand Corporation hired Dalkey and Helmer, then


- 132 -

pioneers in Delphi research, to establish a consensus on how the Soviet military

planners might target the United States (U.S.) industrial system and how many

atomic bombs would be needed to have a specified level of impact on U.S.

military capability. A study by Linstone and Murray (1975) describe the original

Delphi process as comprising four key elements:

• Structuring of information flow;

• Feedback to the participants;

• Anonymity for the participants; and

• Interactions among panel members controlled by a panel director who filtered

out material not relevant to the purpose of the group.

In line with these four elements, Cline (2000) concur that the following three

Delphi prerequisites are needed to ensure successful and robust research:

• Regular feedback of findings to an individual / panel of experts is essential;

• Assessment of an individual’s / panel of experts’ judgment, responses, views

etc. needs to include the opportunity for individuals to revise their

original/previous responses; and

• Anonymity of individual responses (to a certain degree) is preferred to ensure

unbiased and valid responses.

In the late 1960s, Stuter (1999) reports the U.S. Government enhanced the

Delphi process as a group decision-making tool, labelling it ‘Project Hindsight’.

The project established a ‘factual basis’ for the ‘workability’ of the Delphi process.

That is to say, ‘a group of experts could come to some consensus of opinion

when the decisive factors were subjective and not knowledge based’. According

to Stuter (1999), the Delphi technique is also based on the ‘Hegelian Principle’,

where one achieves a ‘oneness of the mind’ through a three-step process of

thesis, ‘antithesis’ and ‘synthesis’. Referring to Table 5-3, the most appropriate

Delphi technique is the ‘Consensus / Conflict Resolution / Higher Order Thinking

Skills’ verification process, where:

• a select panel of industry experts are presented with a research hypothesis

and question;


- 133 -

• a survey instrument is developed and distributed to the select panel of industry

experts for them to voice their opinions;

• each round of survey responses (including any conflicting views) are analysed;

• the findings are redistributed to all expert panel members (using follow-up

survey instruments) until a consensus / stability in responses is reached.

Table 5-3: Hegelian Principle

TECHNIQUE (A)

THESIS * (B)

ANTITHESIS * (C)

SYNTHESIS *

1. Planned Change

Create conflict Create opposition to

conflict, example:

• Fear

• Panic

• Hysteria etc.

• Offer the solution to the

problem created.

• Change, which would have

been impossible without

the proper conditioning is

achieved

2. Consensus / Conflict Resolution / Higher Order Thinking Skills

Detail the topic, issue,

question, hypothesis,

and / or problem within

established guidelines

(frame the debate)

Dialogue, with everyone

in the circle voicing their

feelings and opinions

within established

guidelines relative to the

enumerated topic, issue

or problem

• Synthesis conflicting views

into one point of view,

representing the collective

view of the group

• Emphasise ownership

• All must abide and support

the collective view

3. Whole Theory Cognitive — what one

knows (knowledge)

Affective — what one

feels, believes etc.

Psychomotor — how one will

act / behave ( what one can

do)

4. Outcome-Based Education / Mastery Learning

Identify wanted

attitudes, values,

beliefs

Create conflict between

what one:

• knows; and

• believes (cognitive

inconsistency)

Change existing belief

system, effecting wanted

behaviour

Note (*):

• Thesis (A) and Anti-thesis (B): participants present their opinion or views on a given subject,

establishing both complementary and opposing views

• Synthesis(C): Opposites are brought together to form a new theory, idea, view or notion. All

participants are then to accept ownership of the new thesis and support it, changing their own views to

align with the new theory, idea or notion. Through a continual process of evolution, oneness of mind

will supposedly occur

Adapted from Linstone and Murray (1975)


- 134 -

Today the Delphi technique still adheres to the same underlying principles of its

origin, that of being:

‘A method for structuring a group communication process so that the

process is effective in allowing a group of individuals, as a whole, to deal

with a complex problem … the art of designing communication structures

for human groups involved in attaining some objective’.

Sharp (c1997)

‘An intensive and fairly specialised group problem-solving method used to

harness and reconcile the knowledge and judgment of several experts …

a general process of having experts formulate solutions to problems

through several cycles of revision based on each other's feedback’.

Linstone (1999)

5.4. Four Delphi Phases

Linstone and Murray (1975) states the Delphi technique is generally

characterised as an effective method for ‘structuring a group communication

process so that the process is effective in allowing a group of individuals, as a

whole, to deal with a complex problem’. Linstone and Murray (1975) further note

the Delphi process undergoes four distinct phases (Table 5-4).


- 135 -

Table 5-4: Four Delphi Phases

DELPHI PHASE

DEFINED

1 Characterised by the exploration of the subject under discussion, where individuals can

contribute additional / relevant information they may feel pertinent to the issue

2 Involves the process of reaching an understanding of how the expert group / panel view the

issue. That is to say, where

• members agree or disagree; and

• how they rate its relevance (such as importance, desirability or feasibility)

3 If there is significant disagreement, then it is further explored to expose any underlying reasons

for the differences and to possibly evaluate them

4 Final evaluation occurs when all previously gathered information has been analysed and the

outcomes have been fed back to the expert group / pane for consideration

5.5. Two Forms of a Delphi Process

Andrews and Allen (2002) and Linstone and Murray (1975) confirm the Delphi

process exists in two distinct forms (conventional and real-time or technology-

enhanced).

5.5.1. Conventional / Conference Delphi Process

The Conventional / Conference Delphi process, commonly referred to as the

‘paper-and-pencil’ version, is the more familiar of the two Delphi forms, and is

characterised by:

• a small ‘monitor team’ (researcher/s) designs a questionnaire which is sent to a

larger respondent group;

• after the questionnaire is returned, the research team summarises the results

and (based upon the results received) develop a new questionnaire for the

respondent group and

• upon examination of the panel of response, the respondent panel of experts

are usually given at least one opportunity to re-evaluate their original answers.


- 136 -

Andrews and Allen (2002) also note the Conventional / Conference Delphi

process essentially ‘shifts’ a significant portion of individual effort usually required

to communicate from the larger respondent group, down to a smaller more

manageable research team. Furthermore, the Conventional Delphi Conference

approach has the distinctive characteristic of the research team or researcher

being able to easily ‘adjust’ the features of the process or ‘influence’ certain

responses. Consequently the format of a Delphi-based data collection and

analysis process requires its features to be well defined and accepted by all

participants before the Delphi process is undertaken.

5.5.2. Technology-Enhanced (Real-time) Delphi Process

This is a newer form of the Delphi process that replaces (to a large degree) the

monitoring team (researcher or research team) approach with Information

Communication Technology (ICT); that is, hardware and software programmed to

carry out the compilation of the group results. Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT)

(c1996) identify six steps that may occur during a technology-enhanced Delphi

process and highlight how a computer (using existing / dedicated software) could

affect or change a research process. Andrews and Allen (2002) support these

findings by identifying a number of advantages and disadvantages in employing a

technology-enhanced Delphi process, further stating:

‘Technology-enhanced Delphi Techniques reduce human intervention,

with data collected while reducing many of the normal costs involved in

collecting data’. Andrews and Allen (2002)

5.6. Variations to the Delphi Process

Presented by Sharp (c1997) are five common variations to the Delphi process:

• The more iterations (rounds), the more likely a consensus in responses is

reached;


- 137 -

• The method of selection and size of the expert panel, which can be anything

from five to several hundred participants (Section 5.10);

• The scoring system (rating, ranking etc.) and the rules used to aggregate the

judgements and responses of the panel members (Section 5.11);

• The extent of anonymity afforded to the panel members (Section 5.12); and

• How disagreements / inconsistencies’ are dealt with (Section 5.11).

5.7. Delphi Technique Strengths

No matter what form or variation one employs, according to Linstone and Murray

(1975) there are three key advantages to the Delphi technique (Table 5-5):

Table 5-5: Key Advantages to the Delphi Technique

KEY ADVANTAGE DELPHI TECHNIQUE

1. Versatility

(Most significant)

The technique can be used in a wide range of environments such business and

industry predictions, government planning, experienced project team decisions

and experiences etc.

2. Expense

(Saving

participants)

• Saving multinational corporations money in extensive travel expenses (based

in cities worldwide)

• No need to gather industry experts around a boardroom table

• Experts and key personnel can remain at their locations around the world and

still be able to resolve a problem, answer a survey questionnaire or offer

professional advice pertaining to a certain issue under investigation

3. Anonymity

(Protecting

participants)

The issue of protecting participating expertise from criticism over their proposed

solutions, different views and from the potential pitfalls of ‘group thinking’ is

resolved. Andrews and Allen (2002) also state:

• Anonymity ‘hides’ the hierarchical / dominant status of participants

• Responses are acquired in an ‘interactionist’ format rather than ‘hierarchical’

Linstone and Murray (1975) agree with the above advantages, and identify the

following complementary benefits in using the Delphi technique:

• it allows participants to remain anonymous;

• it is reasonably inexpensive;

• its free of social pressure, personality influence, and individual dominance;

• it allows sharing of information and reasoning among participants;


- 138 -

• it facilitates independent thinking and gradual formulation;

• a broad analytical perspective on numerous issues, problems and concerns

can be achieved through a well-selected panel of expertise from, for example,

a mix of local officials, knowledgeable individuals, specialists, citizens of the

community, academic / research scientists etc.; and

• it can be used to reach a consensus / stability in responses among hostile

groups or individuals.

5.8. Delphi Weakness

Linstone and Murray (1975) state the Delphi method, like all research methods,

has potential weaknesses, where there as many researchers who have had

disappointing experiences with a Delphi process, as there are researchers who

have encountered certain levels of success. This is because, on the surface,

Delphi may seem like a reasonably simple concept that can be easily employed.

Consequently, many researchers have jumped at the opportunity to use this

procedure, without careful consideration of potential problems that may occur.

Sharp (c1997) further identify a number of common factors that tend to contribute

to the potential failure of employing a Delphi process, including:

• researchers over-specifying certain personal view's and preconceptions upon

the respondent group in relation to the topic / issue under investigation;

• researchers assuming the application of a Delphi process can be a substitute

for all other human communications in a given situation;

• poor techniques of summarising and presenting the group response, thereby

ensuring false interpretations of results / responses;

• ignoring or not fully exploring disagreements or inconsistencies resulting in an

artificial consensus of responses of results; and

• underestimating the demanding nature of a Delphi process by researchers not

acknowledging or respecting the time and effort each member of the expert

panel contributes towards the research.


- 139 -

Disadvantages in using the Delphi technique are further highlighted in Sharp

(c1997), describing it as somewhat time consuming and sometimes weak in

terms of providing fully thought-out tried and tested resolutions, thereby rendering

it ineffective when timely resolutions are needed. Furthermore, traditionally,

people interacting in a group or team environment (workshop, meeting, project

etc.) inevitably benefit from or are influenced by (positively and / or negatively)

others' ideas, knowledge, experiences, expertise etc.

Andrews and Allen (2002), also believes this ‘natural human reaction’ contradicts

the basic principles of obtaining versatile, anonymous, unbiased, uninfluenced

information, solutions, recommendations etc. when using the Delphi technique; in

turn suggesting there might be more insightful and pragmatic resolutions to

problems offered by people in interactive settings. However, these disadvantages

diminish in importance where time is not of the essence, or group interaction is

not important. Another weakness of the Delphi technique noted by Sharp is the

difficulty for researchers to design and conduct an effective and analytically

robust Delphi-based study. That is, where the researcher, for example, ‘railroads

the expert panel into accepting the consensus view before allowing them to

express potentially important ideas that might otherwise change the consensus’.

Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT) (c1996) identify the following challenges that

researchers have to face when using the Delphi process:

• the selected group of experts may not be fully representative of the research

topic under investigation;

• determining ways to motivate opinionated individuals to be open to discussions

of ideas other than their own;

• there may be a tendency to eliminate extreme / opposing views thereby forcing

a ‘middle-of-the-road’ consensus;

• the Delphi process should not be viewed as a total solution;

• the researcher requires advanced written communication skills;

• the Delphi process requires adequate time and 100% commitment of all

participants; and finally


- 140 -

• when the researcher summarises each participant's responses, care must be

taken that ‘… the full breadth and depth of each expert's comments is

recorded for the others to respond to’.

5.9. The Eleven-step Delphi Process

In line with the Research Activities Snapshot presented in Figure 1-2 and Table

1-1 of Chapter One, this research adhered to the distinctive yet critical Eleven-

Step Delphi Process (Figure 5-2 and Table 5-6) for the development and

progression of the Delphi Survey Questionnaire - as adapted from Sharp (c1997),

Linstone and Murray (2002) and Sharp (c1997).


- 141 -

Figure 5-2: The Eleven-step Delphi Process

NOTE: • Steps 1 to 11 are also reflected in the Research Activities Snapshot (see Chapter One)

• Steps 3 to 10 are also reflected in the Ten-step Process for Developing Survey Questionnaires by (see

Appendix F:)

11 Prepare

Final Thesis

10 Repeat

Steps 7 to 9 (If required)

9 Analysis of the

2nd Round Responses

8 Distribute

2nd Round Delphi Survey

Questionnaire 7

Develop 2nd Round Delphi


6Analysis of the

1st Round Responses

5Distribute 1st Round

Delphi Survey Questionnaire

4 Test Delphi


3 Develop

1st Round Delphi Survey Questionnaire

2 Select Panel of Industry

Experts

1Form

Research Team

October 2008Round one findings to be

included in the second Delphi Survey Questionnaire

THE ELEVEN-STEPDELPHI PROCESS

Outlining the Development and

Progession of the Delphi Survey Questionnaire

Designed to Identify Key

Components of a ‘Decision-making Framework’ for Delivering Innovative Change

within an Organisation

September 2008 Round one findings (ratings; additional

recommended decision-making dynamics; factors; etc.) are collated,

assessed and summarised

August 2008By mail and through the

use of electronic distribution systems (email, internet, etc)

June 2008 Construction industry experts

who are familiar with / knowledgeable in /

experienced in the field / research topic investigated

(Section 5.2)

June 2008Designed to elicit

individual responses to questions on the

research topic / issue investigated

OUTPUT: • Document final research

findings; conclusions; future research proposals; etc.

• Maintain a certain level of anonymity towards individual contributions

2004 – 2008Author of this Research and Supervisors

November / December

2008 Round two findings

(ratings; recommended decision-making

dynamics; factors; etc.) are collated, assessed

and summarised

October 2008 By mail and through the use of electronic distribution systems (email, internet, etc)

Repeat (If required)

Until consensus and/or stability of results (ranking)

is achieved

July 2008Test contents; format; distribution method;

user-friendliness; etc. (Panel of experts

recommend the term ‘Innovation-driven

Change’ Be replaced with

‘Innovative Change’)

INPUT: • Research Aim / Objectives • Research Hypothesis • Research Question • Literature Review

January -September

2009


- 142 -

Table 5-6: Key to Figure 5-2

ELEVEN-STEP DELPHI PROCESS

1. Form Research Team

(2004 – 2008)

A team was formed to undertake and monitor this research –

comprising of the author and supervisors of this research, and based

on the:

• research aim, objectives, hypothesis and question

• undertaking of a Literature Review on the six hypothesised

decision-making dynamics – those of Change, Innovation,

Implementation, Culture, Leadership, and Training and Education

(Chapter Two)

• Identifying of relative factors for each of the six hypothesised

decision-making dynamics (Chapter Three)

2. Select Panel of Construction Industry Experts

(Jun 2008)

Industry experts (Glossary) who were willing to participate in the

Delphi study were invited:

• See Delphi Survey Invitation Letter (Appendix G:)

• These are to be senior members of the industry knowledgeable in

the area / topic being investigated — that of delivering change

within construction industry organisations (Section 5.12)

3. Develop First Round Delphi Survey Questionnaire

(Jun 2008)

The first Delphi Survey Questionnaire was developed / designed:

• based on a range of closed and open-ended questions,

statements etc. (factors) that originated from Step 1 outcomes

• to provide the panel of experts the opportunity to rate each

question in terms of their relevancy towards a CDF for delivering

innovative change within an organisation

• in consultation with the panel of industry experts; specialist data

analysts, editors and publishers.

4. Test Delphi Survey Questionnaire

(Jul 2008)

The questionnaire’s format and contents was tested:

• All comments (regarding relevancy of survey questions,

statements, grammar, distribution method, ambiguities, user-

friendliness etc.) received from those who took part in the test

were considered

• The first questionnaire was then revised and improved in

accordance to the above comments / suggestions

• Only once the above process was completed to the satisfaction of

those involved in the test, was the first questionnaire approved for

distribution.



- 143 -


5. Distribute First Round Delphi Survey Questionnaire

(Aug 2008)

The first round of the questionnaire was distributed to the expert

panel members via mail and email (Appendix H:)

• Panel members completed it anonymously and independently by

using the scoring (rating) system presented in Section 5.11,

allocating a relevancy rating between 1 (no relevancy) and 5

(most relevant)

• Feedback was both positive and negative, thereby amplifying

differences as well as commonalities

6. Analyse First Round Delphi Survey Questionnaire

(Sept 2008)

First round responses (ratings) and supporting comments (such as

the suggestion of any additional decision-making dynamics, factors

etc.) were then tabulated, analysed and summarised confidentially at

a central location (Chapter Six):

• School of Urban Development, Faculty of Built Environment &

Engineering, Queensland University of Technology (QUT),

Brisbane, Qld Australia

7. Develop Second Delphi Survey Questionnaire

(Oct 2008)

The second Delphi Survey Questionnaire was then developed by

including all round one results, suggestions etc. (Chapter Seven)

8. Distribute Second Delphi Survey Questionnaire

(Oct 2008)

The second questionnaire was distributed to the same panel

members via mail and email (Appendix I:)

• Panel members completed it anonymously and independently by

using the same rating system as in the first round, allocating a

relevancy rating between 1 (no relevancy) and 5 (most relevant)

• Feedback was both positive and negative, thereby amplifying


9. Analyse Second Delphi Survey Questionnaire

(Nov / Dec 2008)

Second round ratings and supporting comments (such as the

suggestion of any additional decision-making dynamics, factors etc.)

were then tabulated, analysed and summarised confidentially at a

central location (Chapter Six):

• School of Urban Development, Faculty of Built Environment &

Engineering, Queensland University of Technology (QUT),

Brisbane, Qld Australia



- 144 -


10. Repeat Steps 7–9 (If Required) Until a Consensus / Stability in Responses is Attained

(Nov–Dec 2008)

Should no consensus in responses be attained among expert panel

members after the second round, then Steps 7 to 9 were to be

repeated until a consensus in results was achieved

• A consensus in ratings was reached at the end of the second

round; also referred to by Fellows and Liu (2003, 28-32, 44, 91-

97) as the ‘Abbreviated Delphi Method’ (Chapter Five) where a

minimum of two rounds is deemed acceptable in reaching a

stability in responses and thereby satisfying the requirements of

this Delphi study

11. Document Final Results

(January–September 2008)

Final results were documented and conclusions were made -

discussed in greater detail in Chapter Six:

• Response data for each of the two survey rounds were collated as

individual Delphi survey forms (Excel spreadsheets) and then

transferred into a survey database for final analysis and

documentation

NOTE: • Steps 1 to 11 are in line with the Research Activities Snapshot presented in Chapter One

• Steps 3 to 10 are also reflected in the Ten-step Process for Developing Survey Questionnaires (see

Appendix F:)

5.9.1. Research Approach to the Eleven-step Delphi Process

Following Step 1 of the Eleven-Step Delphi Process, research proceeded to Step

2, where 15 pre-selected construction industry experts (Section 5.10) were

personally contacted (by telephone or meeting in person), they were then

emailed and posted a formal invitation letter (Appendix G:), and then followed

meetings with the final panel of nine industry experts on regular (two to four

week) intervals throughout the data collection and verification process.

Step 2 undertakings are also supported in Wassenaar and Oestreich (1977), in

that the research ‘subject matter’ (aim, objectives, hypothesis, definition of terms,

methodology etc.) was clearly explained to the panel of experts prior to (and

throughout) the data collection and verification process of the first (and second)

Delphi Survey Questionnaire. This approach helped ensure the gathering of

dependable quantitative (tangible) data (ratings, percentages, values etc.) and


- 145 -

qualitative (intangible) data / information (recommendations, views, observations,

suggestions, ideas, perceptions etc.).

The development of the questionnaire (Step 3) took into account elements and

activities from the ‘Ten-step Process for Developing Survey Questionnaires’

proposed by Adept Scientific (2009) in Appendix F:. The contents, format,

consistency, distribution, data collection method and verification process, user-

friendliness etc. of the questionnaire was tested; revised and improved on by

consulting the panel of construction industry experts, other researchers and a

professional editor. The first round Delphi Survey Questionnaire (Appendix H:)

was approved for distribution once those involved in the test were completely

satisfied (steps 4 and 5).

The contents of the first questionnaire was based on a range of closed and open-

ended questions, statements etc. (factors) identified in Chapter Three, that were

designed to provide the panel of experts the opportunity to evaluate the six

hypothesised dynamics being key components in a CDF for delivering innovative

change within an organisation.

Round-one findings were collated (ratings, additional recommended dynamics,

factors etc.), assessed and summarised (Step 6), and then included in the

second questionnaire (Appendix I:) for the panel of panel to reconfirm their first-

round responses (steps 7 to 9). To satisfy the requirements of a Delphi study,

Step 10 was to be repeated (if required) until a consensus in responses was

reached. Final results were then summarised and documented in accordance

with Step 11.

5.10. Panel of Industry Experts

The construction industry draws on a wide variety of subject matter and

expertise. This newly acquired knowledge (expertise) and information (data) is

generally used by industry stakeholders to resolve a particular situation, to satisfy

certain prerequisites within a work environment (organisation, team, project etc.).


- 146 -

Thus, as illustrated in Step 2 of Figure 5-2 and in actions two and four of the

‘Ten-step Process for Developing Survey Questionnaire’ (Appendix F:), 15 senior

construction industry members (manager and above) were identified and invited

by mail and email (Appendix G:) to take part in a Delphi study.

The selection criterion was based on members being in a recognised field or

occupation within the construction industry and acknowledged as having

extended experience, understanding and / or knowledge in the process of

delivering change within their relative work environments. Of these 15, 9 agreed

to participate in a four-month Delphi study (August–November 2008). As

mentioned earlier, the size of the expert panel can be anything from five to

several hundred participants Sharp (c1997).

The final nine expert panel members (Table 5-7) were representatives of both

private and public construction industry organisations, as well as construction

industry-focused tertiary and R&D institutions (universities); that is, members who

may have limited to no experience in the process of delivering change within

construction industry organisations, yet specialise in the undertaking of change-

related research and education on behalf of the construction industry:


- 147 -

Table 5-7: Expert Panel Members

INDUSTRY SECTOR EXPERT PANEL MEMBER BACKGROUND

1. Private

(Four Panel Members)

• Expert Number Two: A Senior Cost Planner with 21 years experience

(Building and Civil Contractor organisation)

• Expert Number Five: A Director with 14 years experience (Project

Management Consultant)

• Expert Number Eight: A Strategic Development Manager with seven years

experience (Building and Civil Contractor organisation)

• Expert Number Nine: An Executive Manager and Advisor Social

Infrastructure with 20 years experience (Building and Civil Contractor

organisation)

2. Public

(Three Panel Members)

• Expert Number Three: A Director with ten years experience (Building and

Civil client – Queensland Department of Public Works)

• Expert Number Six: A Principal Policy Manager with five years experience

(Building and Civil client – Queensland Department of Public Works)

• Expert Number Seven: A Principal Manager with four years experience

(Research & Development client – Queensland Department of Main Roads)

3. Tertiary

(Two Panel Members)

• Expert Number One: An Adjunct Professor with 33 years experience in both

the private sector and in a university-based research and lecturing setting

(Civil Engineering)

• Expert Number Four: an Adjunct Professor in a university-based research

and lecturing setting (Civil Engineering) and a Senior Engineer with 20 years

experience in the public sector (Queensland Department of Natural

Resources and Water)

5.11. Delphi Survey Questionnaire Response Options

Table 5-8 represents the response options (rating) that the panel of industry

experts could allocate to the various dynamics, related factors and underlying

sub-factors within both rounds of the Delphi Survey Questionnaire:


- 148 -

Table 5-8: Five Response Options

OPTION RATING PERCENTAGE

1 Not Relevant

2 Little Relevance

3 Somewhat Relevant

4 Very Relevant

5 Most Relevant

Thus, any dynamic, factor and / or underlying sub-factor that received a response

rate of three or more (≥60%) were deemed relevant and recognised as key

components of a CDF for delivering innovative change within an organisation.

Should a questionnaire be returned with certain response fields left blank (un-

answered) then the dynamic, underlying factor, or sub-factor in question is

presumed irrelevant (receiving a rating of one) and therefore not considered for

analysis. Moreover, all factors and sub-factors that underpin the various

dynamics are assumed to have equal weight (see Chapter Three), that is the:

• relevancy of each dynamic is based on the mean rate of its underlying factors;

and

• relevancy of each factor is based on the mean rate of its underlying sub-

factors.

5.12. Confidentiality and Ethical Clearance

The data collection, analysis and verification process of the Delphi Survey

Questionnaire meets the ‘ethics requirements’ of QUT’s Office of Research –

ethics approval number (0800000883) – which was requested and obtained prior

(0 - 49 %)

(50 - 79 %)

(80 - 100 %)

0% -

59%

60% -100%

Irrel

evan

t

Relevant

60% Threshold


- 149 -

to its distribution (August 2008). All personal information and data obtained from

the Delphi Survey Questionnaire also remains strictly confidential required purely:

• for statistical purposes;

• so that an expert panel member may be contacted for additional information; or

• should further clarification of any responses be required.

5.13. Summary: Chapter Five

Like most research methods, the Delphi technique does have a number of

potential weaknesses. However, the decision to employ the Delphi technique as

the primary and most appropriate data collection, analysis and verification

process was justified by a number of factors, including:

• The overall strengths and advantages outlined in this chapter.

• Requiring the anonymous collection and analysis of personal and professional

opinions, knowledge, ratings and experiences from a select panel of

geographically dispersed ‘change experts’ within three construction industry-

related environments (organisations) - those of private and public industry

sector organisations, as well as tertiary and R&D institutions (universities).

• The research aim and objectives not lending itself to precise analytical data

collection, analysis and verification techniques — benefiting rather from an

effective method that facilitated subjective and qualitative judgments on a

shared and cooperative basis. :

• The selected group of experts were fully representative of the research topic

under investigation with 100% commitment of all participants; and finally

• The ‘full breadth and depth of each expert's comments [were] recorded for the

others to respond to’ Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT) (c1996).

As a result, the following chapter provides a more detailed outline of the primary

and most appropriate data collection and verification process employed – that of

the Delphi technique.


- 150 -

To satisfy the requirements of the Delphi technique as being the primary and

most appropriate data collection and verification process employed, this

research:

• closely adhered to the Eleven-step Delphi Process in Section 5.9 – that is, to

develop and administer the Delphi Survey Questionnaire;

• incorporated various elements and activities of the ‘Ten-step Process for

Developing Survey Questionnaires’ (Appendix F:);

• identified a panel of nine industry experts who took part in this Delphi study, all

of whom were experienced and / or had knowledge in the delivery of change

within their relative organisations (Section 5.10);

• presented the response options (ratings) that the panel of experts could

allocate to the various decision-making questions, statements etc. (factors);

and

• Met the ‘ethics requirements’ of QUT’s Office of Research (Section 5.12).

Chapter Seven – Data Analysis and Key Findings

- 151 -

6. CHAPTER SIX: DATA ANALYSIS AND KEY FINDINGS

This chapter provides a detailed account of the collection, analysis and

verification process for two consecutive rounds of the Delphi Survey

Questionnaire (referred to in this chapter as the ‘survey’), and the consensus in

responses that was reached at the end of the second round.

6.1. Data Analysis Methodology: Plan and Activities

By adhering to steps six to eleven of the Eleven-Step Delphi Process in Chapter

Five, ‘Preliminary’ and ‘Advanced Analysis’ plans were prepared and applied.

They comprise three survey activities detailed in Table 6-1:


- 152 -

Table 6-1: Survey Analysis Steps and Activities

STEP ACTIVITIES (Refer to Glossary)

TWO PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS ACTIVITIES

1 Enter data into a database for statistical analysis

2

Complete an Exploratory Data Analysis (Section 6.2.2) – where:

• Descriptive Statistics (in the form of Frequency Analysis) are performed to help describe the

sample response data

• Measures of Central Tendency and Dispersion allowed a preliminary assessment and

provided a summary of the sample data.

STEP THREE ADVANCED ANALYSIS ACTIVITIES

3 i. Undertaking a detailed Profile / Cohort Analysis to help develop expert panel member and

organisation profiles (Section 6.2.3) based on:

o A range of descriptive statistics and variables captured in the ‘Background’ section of the

survey – Round-one:

o Predominately using the ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis Test for measures of statistically

significant differences; that is, to test and confirm the outcomes of the analysis in case

spurious results occurred.

ii. Completing a ranking of dynamics (Section 6.2.4), a Factor Analysis and a Cluster Analysis

(Section 6.2.6) in an attempt to identify both the underlying factors and any grouping in

respondents for further exploration

iii. Undertaking a Differential Analysis – to assess whether statistically significant differences

were identifiable (Section 6.2.7), which included the undertaking of Correlations and

Inferential Statistics Cluster Analysis to:

o Enable the classification of industry experts

o A principle components analysis to support the dynamics identified in the survey

NOTE:

• All of the tests were two-tailed and testing whether the Statistic of Interest was either higher (upper

distribution tail); or lower (lower distribution tail) than the Comparison Value.

• Due to a consensus in responses being reached, the final round-two ratings of the survey were

accepted as the final results.

6.1.1. Statistical Analysis Package: GenStat ©

The three Survey Analysis steps and statistical activities in Table 6-1 used the

GenStat © Statistical Analysis Package — a comprehensive statistical program

that summarises, displays, and analyses a wide range of data.


- 153 -

According to Straker (2007), GenStat © was originally conceived and developed

at the Rothamsted Experimental Station (RRES) in the mid to late 1970s, where

many of the original statistical techniques still in use today were discovered. One

of the strengths of the GenStat © analysis package is its vast range of statistical

techniques, which are continuously tested by practicing statisticians across many

applications and disciplines. GenStat © is commonly used in areas such as

industrial research; engineering; quality control; economic and social surveys; as

well as any field of research, business, government or education where statistics

are relied on for decision making.

Due to GenStat's © built-in spreadsheet capability — which allows it to readily

accept and share its data with a wide range of compatible statistical analysis

programs and in a variety of formats — it was used together with Microsoft Excel

to collate and analyse the survey data and to chart the various outputs and key

findings.

Using the GenStat © Statistical Analysis Package, only significance results from

non-parametric statistical tests were recorded. Although a non-parametric test

(compared to a parametric test) may be generally lower in statistical power, this

decision was based on two factors:

• Nine industry experts took part in the two rounds of the survey; and

• Non-parametric statistics are relatively free of any assumptions regarding the

distribution of data (see Glossary).

Determining the practical significance of the data analysed was a matter of

judgement, where the statistical significance level (p-value) for the non-

parametric statistical tests was nominally at the 0.05 level. That is, p-values of

less-than (<) 0.05; or within two Standard Deviations (s.d.) / 95% of the mean

(average) distribution (Figure 6-2 [b]) were considered significant (see Glossary);

thereby indicating a 95% re-occurrence rate in results when analysing the

significance level of further samples from the same population of responses /

data; whilst only a 5% probability in not gaining the same result.


- 154 -

6.2. Data Analysis and Key Findings

Referring to Table 6-1, the results of the ‘Preliminary’ followed by the ‘Advanced’

data analysis from two rounds of survey responses follows.

6.2.1. Background to Response Data Analysed (Step One)

To confirm whether the original six hypothesised dynamics were key components

of the proposed CDF for delivering innovative change in an organisation, and in

line with the Eleven-Step Delphi Process introduced in Section 5.9, the first

survey round (Appendix H:) was designed and distributed to a panel of nine

industry experts between August and September 2008. During this round, expert

panel members were also given the opportunity to identify any additional

dynamics and / or factors they believed to be part of the CDF.

Round-one responses were returned and analysed in early September 2008.

Findings revealed an additional three dynamics (and related factors) were

identified — Knowledge-sharing and Management, Business Process

Requirements and Life-cycle Costs. To achieve a consensus in responses, these

three dynamics were added to the original six and used to populate the second

(final) survey (Appendix I:). This was distributed to the same nine expert panel

members in October 2008, giving them the opportunity to rate all nine dynamics.

One industry expert (number eight) was unavailable to take part in the second

round and was excluded from the final analyses process. Round-two responses

were returned, analysed and summarised in November 2008, at which point the

eight expert panel members reached a consensus — that all nine dynamics were

key components of a CDF for delivering innovative change within organisations.


- 155 -

6.2.2. Preliminary Data Analysis (Step Two): Explorative

A preliminary assessment of sample data determined whether the nine dynamics

were critical to the CDF using a ‘Descriptive Analysis’; and a ‘Measures of

Central Tendency and Dispersion Analysis’ (Table 6-1 – Steps One and Two).

6.2.2.1. Descriptive Analysis

Figure 6-1 summarises the mean responses for each of the nine dynamics (‘a’

and ‘b’) and their relevant factors for both rounds, and shows that the differences

between the two were not statistically significant. That is, the responses for each

factor were insignificantly different and relatively stable between the two rounds,

all reaching a mean percentage rate of between 60% and 93% relevance, and all

above the minimum required rate of three (≥60%) (Section 5.11)


- 156 -

Figure 6-1: Mean Response of Dynamics and Factors

3.5

3.8

3.9

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.1

4.2

3.8

3.7

3.7

3.9

3.8

4.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.0

5.04.2

3.9

3.9

4.1

4.1

4.1

4.0

4.6

4.3

4.1

4.1

4.1

3.9

3.83.7

3.5

4.1

4.3

4.0

4.0

4.0

3.6

3.6

3.5

3.3New vs. Old Leaders / Champions

Minimise Resistance

Leadership Traps

Methods / Models / Frameworks

Regular Reviews

Trust & Collaboration

Human Intervention

Leader vs. Manager

Delivery

Learning Incentives

Benefits

Enhanced Efficiency

Productivity Untrained / Uneducated

Good Investment?

Commonsense (Suggested by Industry Expert #5 - Round 1)

Understanding (Suggested by Industry Expert #5 - Round 1)

Broader Industry Support (Suggested by Industry Expert #1 - Round 1)

Ability (Suggested by Industry Expert #5 - Round 1)

Shared Work-Spaces

Leading Edge

Changing Traditional Data Storage Methods

Sharing vs. Storing Effort

Develop Synergy (2 + 2 = 5)

Go The Extra Mile

Cost Of Innovation-Driven Change Initiative

Lead

ersh

ipTr

aini

ng &

Edu

catio

n

Kno

wle

dge

Sha

ring

&M

anag

emen

t (S

ugge

sted

by In

dust

ry E

xper

t #2

-R

ound

1)

Impa

ct O

nE

nd C

lient

Bus

ines

s(S

ugge

sted

by In

dust

ryE

xper

t #9

-R

ound

1)

Who

le O

fB

usin

ess

Life

cycl

eC

ost

(Sug

gest

edby

Indu

stry

Exp

ert #

9 -

Rou

nd 1

)

1 2 3 4 5

(Continue next page)

Round 1 Round 2 RELEVANCY RATING

RELEVANCE RATING FOR THE FINAL NINE DYNAMICS AND FACTORS

NIN

E D

YNA

MIC

S A

ND

TH

EIR

REL

EVA

NT

FAC

TOR

S

60% threshold

<60%=IRRELEVANT

>60%=RELEVANT

(a) Additional three dynamics & relative factors

(b) Additional

four Training

and Education

factors

Identified by Industry Expert # Nine in

Round-one (Sections 6.2.5.1 & 6.2.5.4)

Identified by Industry Expert # Two in

Round-one (Section 6.2.5.2)

1

2

3

1

2

3

4


- 157 -

(Continued from previous page)

Figure 7-1: Mean Response of Dynamics and Factors

RELEVANCE RATING FOR THE FINAL NINE DYNAMICS AND FACTORS

3.6

3.8

3.8

3.7

3.9

3.9

3.4

3.6

3.7

3.9

4.0

3.4

4.0

3.8

4.2

4.2

3.1

3.1

3.1

3.3

3.7

3.8

4.1

4.0

3.3

4.13.8

3.5

3.2

3.1

3.0

4.0

3.9

3.9

3.6

3.2

4.0

3.8

3.4

3.3

3.3

4.0

4.0

3.8

3.8

3.6

1 2 3 4 5

Cost vs. Timing vs. Difficulty

Change Barriers

Overcoming Challenges


Change Drivers

Need For Change

Strategic Management

Innovative Capabilities vs. Innovative Need

Innovation Drivers

Innovation Challenges / Barriers

Innovation Types

Strategies / Methods / Models / Frameworks

Barriers / Challenges

Timing / Prioritisation / Delegation

Success Factors

Business Goals / Objectives


Sub-Cultures

Feature / Characteristic / Quality / Type / Classification

Success Factors

Work-Life Balance

Need For Culture Change

Culture Change Philosophy

Cha

nge

Inno

vatio

nIm

plem

enta

tion

Cul

ture

60% threshold

>60%=RELEVANT

<60%=IRRELEVANT

Round 1 Round 2 RELEVANCY RATING

NIN

E D

YNA

MIC

S A

ND

TH

EIR

REL

EVA

NT

FAC

TOR

S


- 158 -

6.2.2.2. Measures of Central Tendency and Dispersion

For this portion of the Exploratory Analysis, the Measures of Central Tendency

and Dispersion were Mean and Variation. That is, the use of Mode and Median

were excluded from this analysis as they do not meaningfully describe the central

tendency of the sample responses provided by the panel of industry experts. As

a result, the measure of dispersion adopted was Variance to complement the

Mean. These terms are illustrated in Figure 6-2.

Adapted from Lane (2009), Roberts (2009) and BusinessDictionary.com (2009)

Figure 6-2: Normal Distribution - Standard Deviation Bell Curve

The following three statements constitute what is referred to as the "Empirical Rule" - If you add the responses, you will see that approximately:

A - 68% of the distribution lies within one standard deviation of the mean. B - 95% of the distribution lies within two standard deviations of the mean. C - 99.8% of the distribution lies within three standard deviations of the mean.

s.d. = Standard Deviations (as a measure of spread)

Variance = ‘spread’ of distribution The Mean (at the centre peak of the curve) is the 50% percentile

A

B

C


- 159 -

As illustrated in Figure 6-1, the panel of industry experts took the opportunity in

round-two to modify their initial responses to the various factors and sub-factors

underpinning the nine dynamics. This trend is further reflected in the changed

mean responses for each of the nine dynamics recorded in Table 6-2 (column

‘x’); and the reduction in variation of responses from round-one to round-two

(column ‘y’), particularly for Culture (a) and Leadership (b). These modifications

of responses are further highlighted in Figure 6-3.

Despite column ‘x’ in Table 6-2 indicating a downward trend in mean responses

(from round-one to round-two), the dynamics, with the exception of Change (c);

and Training and Education (d), were above the minimum required rate of three

(≥60%) (Section 5.11)


- 160 -

Table 6-2: Mean and Variance of Responses: Round-one vs. Round-two

NINE DYNAMICS

INDUSTRY EXPERT RATINGS

1 (No Relevance) and 5 (Most Relevant)

ROUND 1 ROUND 2

(x)

Mean

(y)

Variance

(x)

Mean

(y)

Variance

i. Change (c) (Upward Trend in Mean Responses) 3.765 0.503 3.851 0.277

ii. Innovation 3.711 0.665 3.525 0.461

iii. Implementation 3.924 0.705 3.721 0.308

iv. Culture (a) (Reduction in Variation of Responses) 3.457 0.916 3.421 0.537

v. Leadership (b) (Reduction in Variation of Responses) 3.94 0.939 3.792 0.384

vi. Training / Education (d) (Upward Trend in Mean Responses)

3.888 0.730 4.023 0.482

vii. Knowledge Sharing & Management *

(Identified by Industry Expert Number Two)

Additional Dynamics Identified

During Round-

One

5 - 4.094 0.410

viii. Impact on End Client Business *

(Identified by Industry Expert Number Nine) 5 - 3.875 0.783

ix. Whole of Business Life-cycle cost *

(Identified by Industry Expert Number Nine) 5 - 4.188 0.424

[*] • These three additional dynamics were identified by various expert panel members (Section 6.2.5) as

being highly relevant (Figure 6-1 ‘a‘) during round-one of the survey in terms of being key components of the CDF for delivering innovative change within an organisation.

• No rate could be allocated to these by the remaining expert panel members during round-one. • Therefore, to achieve a consensus in responses, the three additional dynamics (and any relevant

factors) where respectively included in round-two of the survey, thereby providing all nine expert panel members the opportunity to allocate a relevance rate of between 1 (no relevance) and 5 (most relevant) to each in terms of whether or not they agree these were key components of the CDF.

• Consensus in responses was subsequently reached by the end of the second (final) round.

UP

UP

DOWN

DOWN


- 161 -

Figure 6-3: Mean Response for Nine Dynamics: By Round

Final analysis of the above round-two responses revealed ‘Whole of Business

Life-cycle Cost’ (a) as being the most relevant dynamic, stabilising at a mean rate

of 4.2 (84%). Conversely, ‘Culture’ (b) was rated as least relevant of the nine

dynamics, yet still above the minimum required rate of three (≥60%) (Section

5.11) - stabilising at a mean rating of 3.4 (68%) relevance.

Therefore, when analysing the Mean and Variation of industry expert responses,

all nine dynamics were confirmed as key components of the CDF.

MEAN RESPONSE FOR NINE DYNAMICS: BY ROUND

5.0 5.0 5.0

3.9 3.73.5

4.13.8 3.9

3.93.7

3.93.5

3.8

4.2

3.4

4.03.9

1

2

3

4

5C

hang

e

Cul

ture

Impa

ct o

n E

ndC

lient

Bus

ines

s

Impl

emen

tatio

n

Inno

vatio

n

Kno

wle

dge

Sha

ring

/M

anag

emen

t

Lead

ersh

ip

Trai

ning

Who

le o

fB

usin

ess

Life

cycl

e C

ost

Round 1 Round 2

(a) 84% Relevance Highest Rated

Dynamic

(b) 68% Relevance Lowest Rated

Dynamic

60%

Threshold

>6

0%=R

ELEV

ANT

<6

0%=IR

RELE

VANT


- 162 -

6.2.3. Advanced Data Analysis (Step Three): Profile Analysis

Referring to step three (activity one) of the Advanced Analysis Plan (Table 6-1),

the results from the Profile Analysis of each expert panel member and the

organisations they represent follow.

During the first survey round (Appendix H:), the personal and organisational

background information from each expert panel member was collated

(confidentially) in order to obtain a better understanding of their individual profiles

and to identify various response categories for analysis.

The variables of response data were saved as individual Excel spreadsheets,

transferred into a survey database, categorised and then analysed according to

the Delphi Technique outlined in Chapters Five and Six. The personal and

organisational (profile) categories for this analysis are detailed in Table 6-3.

As noted previously, although the responses from industry expert number eight

were excluded from the round-two analysis, the first round of responses were still

included in the Profile Analysis.


- 163 -

Table 6-3: Profile Analysis Categories

ORGANISATIONAL CATEGORIES

i. Size Size of organisation: based on turnover

1. Categorised as 1 = >$100M or 2 = <$100M

ii. Public vs. Private Sector

Main sector of the industry expert’s organisation

2. Categorised as Public or Private

iii. Classification Main classification of the industry expert’s organisation

3. Categorised as Client; Contractor; or Consultant (which includes Academic and

R&D organisations)

iv. Geographic Location

Main geographic location of the industry expert’s organisation

4. Categorised as Australian-based or Internationally-based

INDUSTRY EXPERT CATEGORIES

i. Role The current position of the industry expert.

5. Categorised as 1 = Manager; 2 = Director or 3 = Academic (including research)

ii. Experience Change management experience of the industry expert

6. Categorised as Yes or No

iii. Education Level Highest level of education obtained by the industry expert

7. Categorised as 1 = Post Graduate Degree or above or 2 = Bachelors Degree

or below

iv. Employment Length

(In Current Role)

Length of time in the industry expert’s current position

8. Categorised as 1 = >10 years or 2 = 10 years or less

Based on the above categories, the results and outcomes of the Profile Analysis

of expert panel members and the organisations they represented follow.

6.2.3.1. Highest Education

The panel of experts were asked to confirm the highest level of education they

had completed. Results show that most industry experts achieved a Bachelors

Degree or higher, with only one expert indicating a Diploma being the highest.


- 164 -

6.2.3.2. Current Position

Industry experts were asked the title of their current position. Results showed that

each of the panel members performed a different yet senior role within their

organisations. These positions comprised six managers, two directors and one

academic (including research).

6.2.3.3. Length of Employment (In Current Role)

Results showed that each of the panel members had varying lengths of

employment, with a total of 134 years of employment between them. The length

of employment was divided into two main groups. Group one represented the

four industry experts who were employed for less than ten years in their current

role; and group two the remaining five industry experts with more than ten years

of employment in their current role.

6.2.3.4. Organisation Classification

Industry experts were also asked for their organisation's main classification,

identifying three clients, four contractors and two consultants (which include

academic and R&D organisations).

6.2.3.5. Organisation Size

For classification and analysis purposes, industry experts were asked the size of

their organisations. Size was based on its average annual turnover – those with

an average annual turnover greater than $100 million; and those with less than

$100 million.


- 165 -

Most industry experts (seven) were from larger organisations (those greater than

$100 million). For the remaining two smaller organisations, one had an annual

turnover of less than $100 million; and the other less than $500,000.

6.2.3.6. Organisation Sector

Finally, industry experts were asked whether their organisation would be

classified as a public or private enterprise. Both enterprise groups were equally

represented with five organisations classified as public enterprises and the

remaining four as private.

6.2.4. Advanced Data Analysis (Step Three): Ranking of Dynamics

Following the above Explorative and Profile Analysis, and referring to step three

(activity two) of the Advanced Analysis Plan (Table 6-1), this section documents

the final results from analysing the responses from the second and final survey

round (Appendix I:). This allowed ranking of the nine dynamics, as shown in

Table 6-4.

The final (round-two) mean relevance rates for each of the nine dynamics were

also ranked in accordance with the industry expert’s characteristics and

organisational factors (see Section 2.7.2.6.2.8).


- 166 -

Table 6-4: Final Ranking of the Nine Dynamics

RANK * NINE DYNAMICS MEAN RATE

1 (No Relevance) - 5 (Most Relevant)

WEIGHT (%) *

(Based on Mean Relevance

Rate)

1

(Highest)

Whole of Business Life-cycle cost Three dynamics

receiving the highest

mean response at the end

of final round-two

4.2 84%

(Highest)

2 Knowledge-sharing and Management 4.1 82%

3 Training / Education 4.04 81%

4 Impact on End Client Business 3.9 78%

5 Change 3.9 78%

6 Leadership Four dynamics

receiving the lowest

mean response at the end

of final round-two

3.8 76%

7 Implementation 3.7 74%

8 Innovation 3.5 70%

9

(Lowest)

Culture 3.4

68%

(Lowest)

[*] Refers to the Rank and Weight of the Nine Dynamics - in terms of their mean relevance rate as key components of the CDF for delivering innovative change within an organisation

6.2.5. Advanced Analysis (Step Three): Relevance of Nine Dynamics

With reference to the rankings in Table 6-4, and in line with step three (activity

three) of the Advanced Analysis Plan (Table 6-1), this section outlines the results

from analysing the responses to the second and final survey round (Appendix I:)

by highlighting the relevance rate calculated for each of the nine dynamics and

confirming these as key components of the proposed CDF.

6.2.5.1. Relevance of Whole of Business Life-cycle cost

During round-one, expert number nine identified the dynamic ‘Whole of Business

Life-cycle Cost’ as being a key component of the CDF, underpinned by the factor

‘Costs of Innovative Change’ and its two sub-factors ‘Working Closely with


- 167 -

Clients’ and ‘Consider Capital vs. Operational Costs’. Referring to Figure 7-4, the

panel of experts was given the opportunity in round-two to confirm whether or not

they agree with expert number nine’s recommendation. Although expert number

six (c) was recorded rating the ‘Costs of Innovative Change’ factor (a) 20% lower

than the other seven panel members, when calculating its overall mean

relevance rating (e), final results still exceeded the minimum required percentage

rate of 60% or above (Section 5.11).

Figure 6-4: Relevance of Whole of Business Life-cycle Cost

Analysis of responses reveal a consensus was reached at the end of the second

round, where the ‘Whole of Business Life-cycle Cost’ dynamic received an overall

84 83 85

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

COST OF INNOVATION-DRIVENCHANGE INITIATIVE

Work Closely with Clients… Recognise Higher Capital Cost…

(%)

#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 AVERAGE RATING (#1-7 & 9)

<6

0%=I

RR

ELE

VA

NT

>6

0%=R

ELEV

ANT

RELEVANCE OF: ‘WHOLE OF BUSINESS LIFE-CYCLE COST’

(Identified by Industry Expert Number Nine)

(f2) (f1)

(b) Proposed

Sub-Factors

(a) Proposed Factor

(c)

Data from Industry Expert #8 are excluded from Final Analysis (As noted in Section 5.11)

60%

Threshold

(e)


- 168 -

percentage rate of 84% and thereby the most relevant of the nine dynamics

within the proposed CDF. This calculation was based on the following two sub-

factor (b) results:

• ‘Working Closely with Clients’ (83%) (f1): Working with clients as well as with

other key stakeholders in order to accurately evaluate the proposed innovative

change

• ‘Consider Capital vs. Operational Costs’ (85%) (f2): By effectively comparing

the upfront capital costs of innovative change against the ongoing operational

costs.

6.2.5.2. Relevance of Knowledge-sharing and Management

In round-two, the panel of experts confirmed whether or not they agreed with

expert number two’s recommendation of the dynamic ‘Knowledge-sharing and

Management’ by allocating a relevance rate to each of its four underlying factors:

‘Changing Traditional Data Storage Methods’; ‘Sharing vs. Storing Effort’;

‘Shared Work-spaces’ and ‘Leading Edge’ (see ‘a’ in Figure 6-5).

Although industry experts one, three and six rated the relevance of certain factors

lower than the rest, they all still met the minimum required percentage rate of

60% or above (Section 5.11).


- 169 -

Figure 6-5: Relevance of Knowledge-sharing and Management

Analysis of responses reveal a consensus was reached for the ‘Knowledge-

sharing and Management’ dynamic, receiving an overall percentage rate of 82%

and therefore the second most relevant of the nine dynamics within the proposed

CDF. This was based on the mean ratings calculated from its four underlying

factors:

• Changing Traditional Data Storage Methods (83%) (a1): Having the ability to

convert traditional (tacit and explicit) formats of value-adding data, information

and / or knowledge, and then storing these in a shared (electronic)

environment (for future use).

• Sharing vs. Storing Effort (83%) (a2): To ensure efforts to manage and share

electronic data, information and / or knowledge, closely matches (if not

83808383

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

CHANGING TRADITIONALDATA STORAGE METHODS

SHARING VS. STORINGEFFORT

SHARED WORK-SPACES LEADING EDGE

(%)

#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 AVERAGE RATING (#1 - 8)

(a) Proposed Factors

60%

Threshold


>6

0%=R

ELEV

ANT

<6

0%=I

RREL

EVAN

T RELEVANCE OF: ‘KNOWLEDGE-SHARING AND MANAGEMENT’


(a1) (a2) (a3) (a4)


- 170 -

reduces) traditional (current) efforts of managing and sharing the equivalent

hard copy formats of the same data, information and / or knowledge.

• Shared Work-spaces (80%) (a3): Having ready access to virtual workspaces

and platforms (internet etc.) that house suitable and user-friendly data,

information and knowledge creating, storing; and sharing tools, system,

programs etc.

• Leading Edge (83%) (a4): Ensuring that all efforts in creating, sharing and

managing data, information and knowledge are value adding. No-one wants to

be on the ‘bleeding edge’ of progress — ‘leading ... not bleeding’.

6.2.5.3. Relevance of Training and Education

The experts were asked to determine the relevance of facilitating suitable

‘Training and Education’ environments and incentives that are, for example,

attuned to promoting employees and project team members to willingly absorb

their newly attained innovative change knowledge and effectively apply these

experiences within their current and future work environment.

Over and above the original six hypothesised factors and relevant sub-factors

(see ‘a’ in Figure 6-6), experts one and five identified an additional four factors for

this dynamic during survey round-one: ‘Broader Industry Support’; ‘Ability’;

‘Understanding’; and ‘Commonsense’ (see ‘b’ in Figure 6-6). In round-two the

experts confirmed whether or not they agreed by allocating a relevance rate to

each of these factors.

Although most experts, with the exception of number nine, rated the relevance of

certain factors as low as 60% (e), they all still met the minimum required

percentage rate specified in Section 5.11.


- 171 -

Figure 6-6: Relevance of Training and Education

Final results reveal a consensus was reached at the end of the second round,

with ‘Training and Education’ receiving an overall percentage rate of 81% and

73

73

75

73

70

75

83

79

80

78

83

85

88

83

93

83

83

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

LEARNING INCENTIVES

Continue Training, Learning and Developmentof skill-sets?

Increased Productivity Levels of employees(students)?

Voluntarily Create, Share and Apply their newlyattained knowledge?

DELIVERY

BENEFITS

GOOD INVESTMENT?

ENHANCED EFFICIENCY

Creativity and Skills?

Suitable and Professional Learning / TrainingEnvironment / Platform?

PRODUCTIVITY UNTRAINED / UNEDUCATED

BROADER INDUSTRY SUPPORT (Suggested by Industry Expert #1 - Round 1)

Ensuring Enhanced Efforts and Improved Inputfrom Professional Learned Bodies from the

Industry? Having Ready Acess to Relevant Sucessful as

well as Failed Case Study Examples forEnhanced Future Learning?

ABILITY (Suggested by Industry Expert #5 - Round 1)

UNDERSTANDING (Suggested by Industry Expert #5 - Round 1)

COMMONSENSE (Suggested by Industry Expert #5 - Round 1)

(%)

#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 AVERAGE RATING (#1 - 8)

RELEVANCE OF: ‘TRAINING AND EDUCATION’

(Hypothesised Dynamic)


60% Threshold

>60%=RELEVANT

<60%=IRRELEVANT

(d) 93% M

ean R

elevance Rate

(Highest Factor)

(c) 70% M

ean R

elevance Rate

(Lowest Factor)

(e)

(b) Additional Four Factors and Relevant Sub-factors

(a) Original Six Hypothesised Factors and Relevant Sub-factors

1 2 3 4

1 2 3

4

5 6


- 172 -

therefore the third most relevant of the nine dynamics within the proposed CDF.

This percentage rate was based on the mean ratings calculated for the original

six (a) and the additional four factors (b):

• Learning Incentives (73%): To ensure trainers and educators offer and promote

effective reward and learning incentive packages that encourage the following

influencing sub-factors:

o Employees (students) to continue training, learning and development of skill

sets (73%).

o Increased productivity levels of employees (students) (75%).

o Employees to voluntarily create, share, and apply their newly attained

knowledge amongst other co-workers, stakeholders and work environments

(73%).

• Delivery (c) - Lowest Rated Training and Education Factor (70%): To ensure

trainers and educators have ready access and the required skill sets to employ

the latest training and education delivery tools (models, frameworks, action-

points, ‘disciplines’ etc.), such as using synchronised and instructor-led

training systems and programs with innovative and user-friendly video, audio

and graphical presentation for geographically dispersed applications etc.

• Benefits (75%): To ensure trainers and educators recognise and continuously

promote the key benefits that can be gained through improved training and

education.

• Good Investment (83%): To ensure that investing in the development (training

and educating) of employees is a logical, worthwhile and essential endeavour;

promoted and supported accordingly by senior management.

• Enhanced Efficiency and Productivity (79%): The best way for trainers and

educators to improve long-term efficiencies and enhance overall productivity

levels of employees (through the effective use of the proposed innovative

change) is to adhere to the following influencing sub-factors:

o Unlock and develop an individual employee’s creativity and skills (80%).

o Provide employees with a suitable and professional learning and training

environment or platform that enables newly acquired skill sets to be

effectively disseminated, communicated and applied within current and

future work environments (78%).


- 173 -

• Untrained and Uneducated (83%): Ensuring key employees are not left

uneducated or untrained on how to effectively apply innovative change, that is,

ensuring employees of an organisation perform to their full potential.

• Broader Industry Support and Involvement: Identified by Industry Expert

Number One (85%): Trainers and educators to take an active role in, and get

more involved with current construction industry undertakings by adhering to

the following influencing sub-factors:

o To ensure enhanced efforts and improved input from professional learned

bodies from the industry (83%).

o Having ready access to relevant successful and failed case study examples

for enhanced future learning (83%).

• Ability (d) - Highest Rated Training and Education Factor - Identified by

Industry Expert Number Five (93%): To ensure trainers and educators have

the ability to offer the necessary industry standard and level of education.

• Understanding - Identified by Industry Expert Number Five (83%): To ensure

employees have the basic ability to learn the new skill sets.

• Commonsense - Identified by Industry Expert Number Five (83%): To ensure

employees can think in a logical way.

6.2.5.4. Relevance of Impact on End-client Business

During round two, the panel rated expert number nine’s recommendation of the

‘Impact on End-client Business’ dynamic by allocating a relevance rate between

1 (no relevance) and 5 (most relevant) to its two underlying factors: ‘Go the Extra

Mile’ and ‘Developing Synergy’ (see ‘a’ in Figure 6-7).


- 174 -

Figure 6-7: Relevance of Impact on End-client Business

Although experts two, three and six rated the two factors between 40% and 60%

(b1 and b2), when incorporated into calculating their mean relevance rating, they

each received an overall percentage rate of 78%, which met the minimum

required rate specified in Section 5.11:

• Go the Extra Mile (78%): Developing strong client and other key stakeholder

relationships, that is, beyond the mere re-engineering, supply, operational and

physical infrastructure requirements of the proposed innovative change.

• Develop Synergy (78%): Developing a total business plan with inputs from the

client and other key stakeholders by promoting win / win outcomes (2 + 2 =

>5). Achieved by taking into account all possible upstream and downstream

effects and influences the delivery of a proposed innovative change may have

on the re-engineering, infrastructure and / or business process requirements of

7878

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GO THE EXTRA MILE DEVELOP SYNERGY (2 + 2 = 5)

(%)

#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 AVERAGE RATING (#1-7 & 9)

>6

0%=R

ELEV

ANT

<6

0%=I

RREL

EVAN

T

RELEVANCE OF: ‘IMPACT ON END-CLIENT BUSINESS’


(a) Proposed Factors

(b1)

(b2)

60%

Threshold



- 175 -

all parties involved (e.g. through a joint impact analysis; risk vs. opportunity

assessment etc.)

Final analyses of results reveal that a consensus was reached at the end of the

second round, where the ‘End-client Business’ dynamic received an overall

percentage rate of 78% and therefore the fourth most relevant of the nine

dynamics within the proposed CDF.

6.2.5.5. Relevance of Change

For the dynamic of ‘Change’ the panel rated each of its six hypothesised factors

and their relevant sub-factors: ‘Need’; ‘Drivers’; ‘Barriers’; ‘Overcome

Challenges’; ‘Cost vs. Timing vs. Difficulty’; and ‘Methods, Models, and

Frameworks’ (see ‘a’ in Figure 6-8).


- 176 -

Figure 6-8: Relevance of Change

Although Figure 6-8 shows certain experts rating a number of change factors

between 40% and 60% (x and y), when incorporated into calculating their mean

8175

75

88

85

80

80

75

78

73

73

73

70

80

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

NEED FOR CHANGE

Globalisation Of The Economy?

Increased Competition?

Technological Advancement?

Labour Shortages?

Increased Client Expectations?

CHANGE DRIVERS

CHANGE BARRIERS

OVERCOMING CHALLENGES

COST vs. TIMING vs. DIFFICULTY

Timely?

Cost Effective?

Less 'Difficult' / More 'User Friendly'?

METHODS / MODELS / FRAMEWORKS

(%)

#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 AVERAGE RATING (#1 - 8)

>60%=RELEVANT

<60%=IRRELEVANT

(x)

(y)

(b) 81% M

ean R

elevance Rate

(Highest Factor)

(c) 73% M

ean R

elevance Rate

(Lowest Factor)

60% Threshold


RELEVANCE OF: ‘CHANGE’


(a) Original Six Hypothesised Factors and Relevant Sub-factors

1 2

3

4

5 6


- 177 -

relevance, they each received an overall percentage rate well above the

minimum required rate specified in Section 5.11:

• Need (b) - Highest Rated Change Factor (81%): The following sub-factors

should be considered when emphasising or justifying the 'need' for innovative

change:

o Globalisation of the economy: Global economic trends to help identify

business risks and investment opportunities (75%).

o Effects of increased competition (75%).

o Identifying technological advancement opportunities: in areas such as

software, hardware, e-systems, mobile computing, handheld products,

manufacturing, installation, erecting etc. (88%).

o Labour shortages and the need to, for example, adopt advanced resource

and knowledge management initiatives (85%).

o Increased client expectations in using; for example, new, innovative or state-

of-the-art processes, systems, products, methods, materials etc. (80%).

• Drivers (80%): Identifying and then determining ways to incorporate the key

factors that can help drive and convince members to readily adopt the

innovative change delivery and application process.

• Barriers (75%): Identifying and then determining ways to overcome various

forms of resistance that challenges members to readily adopt and adapt to the

innovative change delivery and application process.

• Overcome Challenges (78%): Having ready access to relevant, trialled and

tested actions and approaches to help members overcome their inherent fear

and resistant approach towards the delivery and application of innovative

change.

• Cost vs. Timing vs. Difficulty (c) - Lowest Rated Change Factor (73%): Having

ready access to the most relevant, trialled and tested (good practice) delivery

and application process or strategy that is:

o Timely – undertaken at a suitable or preferred point in time (73%).

o Cost effective – through, for example, the efficient use of available / shared

resources (73%).

o Less 'difficult' and more 'user friendly' – offering a greater chance in success

and sustainability (70%).


- 178 -

• Methods, Models and Frameworks (80%): Having ready access to relevant,

trialled and tested (good practice) change models, methods and frameworks to

help ensure the sustainable delivery of innovative change.

Final analysis of responses reveal a consensus was reached at the end of the

second round, which resulted in ‘Change’ receiving an overall percentage rate of

78% and therefore the fifth most relevant of the nine dynamics within the

proposed CDF.

6.2.5.6. Relevance of Leadership

The panel of experts evaluated the relevance of ‘Leadership’ by rating each of its

eight hypothesised factors: ‘Leader vs. Manager’; ‘Human Intervention’; ‘New vs.

Old Leaders and / or Champions’; ‘Trust and Collaboration’; ‘Leadership Traps’;

‘Regular Reviews’; ‘Minimise Resistance’; and ‘Methods, Models and

Frameworks’ (see ‘a’ in Figure 6-9).


- 179 -

Figure 6-9: Relevance of Leadership

73

70

80

73

80

70

68

63

67

75

83

80

83

80

85

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

LEADER vs. MANAGER

HUMAN INTERVENTION

Personal and Professional?

Positive Environment of Mutual Assuranceand Success?

Achievable Business Goals andObjectives?

Resource Capabilities / Limitations?

NEW VS. OLD LEADERS / CHAMPIONS

Leadership Skill Sets (communication,business, etc .)?

Recipies ' for Success?

Clearer (Unbiased / Realis tic) V is ion /Goals / Objectives?

TRUST & COLLABORATION

LEADERSHIP TRAPS

REGULAR REVIEWS

MINIMISE RESISTANCE


(% )

#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 AVERAGE RATING (#1 - 8)

>60%=RELEVANT

<60%=IRRELEVANT

60% Threshold

(x)

(y)

(c) 67% M

ean R

elevance Rate

(LowestFactor)

(z)


(b) 85% M

ean R

elevance Rate

(HighestFactor)

RELEVANCE OF: ‘LEADERSHIP’


(a) Original Eight Hypothesised Factors and Relevant Sub-factors

1 2

3

4

5 6

7 8


- 180 -

With the exception of number nine, experts rated a number of leadership factors

and sub-factors between 40% and 60% relevance (x, y and z). Yet, when

incorporated into calculating their overall mean relevance at the end of the

second round, they still achieved a percentage rate well above the minimum

specified in Section 5.11:

• Leader vs. Manager (b) - Highest Rated Leadership Factor (85%): To realise

that ‘not all leaders are managers, nor are managers all leaders’.

• Human Intervention (80%): To ensure that a leader or champion's 'human

intervention' capabilities and experience include:

o An enhanced level of communication skill sets – personal and professional

(83%).

o Being able to facilitate a positive environment of mutual assurance and

success (80%).

o The ability of setting achievable business goals and objectives (83%).

o Recognising personal (employee) and other (non-human) resource

capabilities and limitations (75%).

• New vs. Old Leaders and Champions (c) - Lowest Rated Leadership Factor

(67%): To consider the introduction of new (external) leaders to champion

employees through the delivery and application process, to contribute: o Fresh, enhanced, valuable and ‘never tried before’ leadership skill sets

(63%).

o Tried and tested ideas, processes and innovative recipes for success (68%).

o A clearer, unbiased and realistic vision, goal and objective (70%).

• Trust & Collaboration (80%): To ensure leaders and champions encourage

employees to promote a sustainable 'culture’/philosophy of trust and

collaboration (before, during and after) the delivery and application process.

• Leadership Traps (73%): To ensure leaders and champions have ready access

to past leadership ‘traps' or hints (do’s and don’ts) experienced by

acknowledged leaders and champions from both construction and other

industry sectors.

• Regular Reviews (80%): To ensure leaders and champions regularly and

continuously review (before, during and after) the delivery and application

process.


- 181 -

• Minimise Resistance (70%): To ensure leaders and champions have ready

access to, and incorporate relevant, tried and tested (good practice)

approaches that can reduce organisational member resistance towards the

delivery of innovative change.

• Methods, Models and Frameworks (73%): To ensure leaders and champions

have ready access to, and incorporate relevant, tried and tested (good

practice) leadership models, methods, actions and frameworks to help ensure

the successful delivery and application of innovative change.

Final analysis of results reveal a consensus was reached at the end of the

second round, which resulted in ‘Leadership’ receiving an overall percentage rate

of 76% and therefore the fourth least relevant of the nine dynamics within the

proposed CDF.

6.2.5.7. Relevance of Implementation

‘Implementation’ was rated by the panel by allocating a relevance of 1 (no

relevance) to 5 (most relevant) to each of its five hypothesised factors and sub-

factors: ‘Business Goals and Objectives’; ‘Strategies, Methods, Models and

Frameworks’; ‘Timing, Prioritisation and Delegation’; ‘Barriers and Challenges’;

and ‘Success Factors’ (see ‘a’ in Figure 6-10).

Although Figure 6-10 shows all eight experts rated various Implementation

factors and sub-factors between 40% and 60% (x and y), when incorporated into

calculating their mean relevance, they each received an overall percentage rate

well above the minimum required rate specified in Section 5.11.


- 182 -

Figure 6-10: Relevance of Implementation

78

73

78

80

78

78

68

60

64

80

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

BUSINESS GOALS / OBJECTIVES

STRATEGIES / METHODS / MODELS /FRAMEWORKS

The innovation-driven change solution?

The organisation or project team work /social environment?

TIMING / PRIORITISATION / DELEGATION

Timing?

Prioritisation?

Delegation?

BARRIERS / CHALLENGES

SUCCESS FACTORS

(%)

#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 AVERAGE RATING (#1 - 8)

>60%=RELEVANT

<60%=IRRELEVANT

RELEVANCE OF: ‘IMPLEMENTATION’



(b) 80% M

ean R

elevance Rate

(HighestFactor)

(c) 64% M

ean R

elevance Rate

(LowestFactor)

(x)

(y)

60% Threshold

(a) Original Five Hypothesised Factors and Relevant Sub-factors

1 2 3 4

5


- 183 -

Final analysis of results reveals a consensus was reached at the end of the

second round, which resulted in ‘Implementation’ receiving an overall percentage

rate of 74% and therefore the third least relevant of the nine dynamics within the

proposed CDF. This percentage rate was based on the mean ratings calculated

for its five hypothesised factors and sub-factors:

• Business Goals and Objectives (b) - Highest Rated Implementation Factor

(80%): To ensure that the implementation process fulfils (meets) key and pre-

determined business strategies, goals and objectives. • Strategies, Methods, Models and Frameworks (c) - Lowest Rated

Implementation Factor (64%): To have ready access to relevant, trialled and

tested (good practice) implementation strategies, methods, models and

frameworks that best serve the needs of:

o Innovative change or ‘new or improved way of doing things’ (60%).

o The organisation’s work and social environment – employees, end users

and other key stakeholders (68%).

• Timing, Prioritisation and Delegation (78%): To ensure the implementation

process incorporates the following three actions: o Timing: To determine a suitable point in time for an implementation process

to get underway (78%).

o Prioritisation: To identify what takes precedence before, during and after the

implementation process (80%).

o Delegation: To determine who does what (resource management) before,

during and after the implementation process (78%).

• Barriers and Challenges (73%): To determine ways on how to best manage /

overcome key concerns and contributing factors that tend to challenge the

implementation process.

• Success Factors (78%): To determine ways on how to best incorporate critical

success factors that may help ensure a sustainable implementation process.


- 184 -

6.2.5.8. Relevance of Innovation

‘Innovation’ was rated by allocating a relevance of 1 (no relevance) to 5 (most

relevant) to each of its five hypothesised factors: ‘Strategic Management’;

‘Types’; ‘Capabilities vs. Need’; ‘Drivers’; ‘Challenges and Barriers’ (see ‘a’ in

Figure 6-11).

Figure 6-11: Relevance of Innovation

Although all eight experts rated certain Innovation factors as low as 60%

relevance (x), when incorporated into calculating the overall mean rate for these,

each factor still met the minimum required percentage rate of 60% or above

relevance (Section 5.11).

65

80

65 68

75

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

INNOVATIONTYPES

STRATEGICMANAGEMENT

INNOVATIVECAPABILITIES vs.

INNOVATIVE NEED

INNOVATIONDRIVERS

INNOVATIONCHALLENGES /

BARRIERS

(%)

#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 AVERAGE RATING (#1 - 8)

>60%=RELEVANT <60%

=IRRELEVANT

(a) Original Five Hypothesised

Factors

(c) 80% Mean Relevance Rate (Highest Factor

(b2) 65% Mean Relevance Rate (Lowest Factor

(b1) 65% Mean Relevance Rate

(Lowest Factor)

(x)

60%

Threshold


RELEVANCE OF: ‘INNOVATION’



- 185 -

Figure 6-11 further reveals a consensus was reached at the end of the second

round, which resulted in ‘Innovation’ receiving an overall percentage rate of 70%

and therefore the second least relevant of the nine dynamics within the proposed

CDF. This percentage rate was based on the mean ratings calculated for its five

factors and sub-factors:

• Types (b1) - Lowest Rated Innovation Factor (65%): To determine what is the

most appropriate ‘type’ of innovation to pursue (including being familiar of all

associated factors, potential business and strategic benefits, profitability

aspects, risks etc.).

• Strategic Management (c) - Highest Rated Innovation Factor (80%): To have

ready access to relevant, trialled and tested (good practice) strategic

approaches, actions and methods to help better manage, control, govern, lead

and champion the delivery of innovative change.

• Capabilities vs. Need (b2) - Lowest Rated Innovation Factor (65%): To

determine the efficiency and responsiveness of an organisation’s innovative

capabilities (ability to recognise, create and apply innovative initiatives) and to

verify the overall need to be more innovative or not.

• Drivers (68%): To identify and then incorporate the key factors that help drive

and convince members to accelerate and revitalise their desire in becoming

more innovative.

• Challenges and Barriers (75%): To identify and manage / overcome key

concerns that tends to challenge innovation-related activities or initiatives.

6.2.5.9. Relevance of Culture

The experts evaluated the ‘Culture’ dynamic by rating each of its seven

hypothesised factors and sub-factors: ‘Culture Change Philosophy’; ‘Success

Factors’; ‘Features, Characteristics, Quality, Types and Classifications’; ‘Need for

Culture Change’; ‘Work–Life Balance’; ‘Sub-Cultures’; and ‘Methods, Models and

Frameworks’ (see ‘a’ Figure 6-12).


- 186 -

Figure 6-12: Relevance of Culture

60

63

70

75

65

78

63

53

53

75

64

78

85

85

83

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

CULTURE CHANGE PHILOSOPHY

Highly Influential resources?

Difficult and Complex Dynamics to Identifywith / Define / Understand?

Difficult and Complex Dynamics to Predict /Control / Manage?

SUCCESS FACTORS

Reinforc ing a Relationship of ‘Trust’ ?

Improving Office Design / Layout / WorkingEnvironments / Conditions?

Introducing a Voluntary Job or Task RotationPolicy?

Offering Pragmatic Reward and EffectiveIncentive Packages?

Increasing Employee / StakeholderParticipation?

FEATURE / CHARACTERISTIC / QUALITY /TYPE / CLASSIFICATION

NEED FOR CULTURE CHANGE

WORK-LIFE BALANCE

SUB-CULTURES


(% )

#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 AVERAGE RATING (#1 - 8)


RELEVANCE OF: ‘CULTURE’


>60%=RELEVANT

<60%=IRRELEVANT

(w)

(y)

(x)

(z)

(b) 83% M

ean R

elevance Rate

(Highest Factor)

(c) 60% M

ean R

elevance Rate

(Lowest Factor)

60% Threshold

(a) Original Seven Hypothesised Factors and Relevant Sub-factors

1

2

3 4

5

6

7


- 187 -

During the second round, the panel rated various culture factors and sub-factors

between 40% and 60% (w, x, y and z). Yet, when incorporated into calculating

the overall mean rating for these, they still met the minimum required percentage

rate outlined in Section 5.11:

• Success Factors 64%;

• Work–Life Balance 70%;

• Sub-cultures 63%; and

• Methods, Models and Frameworks 60%.

Figure 6-12 further reveals a consensus was reached at the end of the second

round, which resulted in ‘Culture’ receiving an overall percentage rate of 68%

and therefore the least relevant of the nine dynamics within the proposed CDF.

This percentage rate was based on the mean ratings calculated for its seven

hypothesised factors and sub-factors:

• Culture Change Philosophy (b) - Highest Rated Culture Factor (83%): To

convince members to readily change their current and traditional ways of

‘doing things’ in order to adopt / adapt to innovative change.

• Success Factors (64%): To achieve increased levels of success in adopting a

sustainable change in culture by:

o Reinforcing a relationship of ‘trust’ between co-workers, senior

management, employees, and other internal and external stakeholders

(75%)

o Improving office design, layout, working environments and conditions, such

as open vs. closed office layout, upgrade onsite facilities and safety etc.

(53%)

o Introducing a voluntary job or task rotation policy, such as flexible rosters, a

five-day working week policy etc. (53%)

o Offering pragmatic reward and effective incentive packages (63%)

o Increasing employee and key stakeholder participation in the decision-

making process of delivering innovative change in existing and future work

environments (78%)

• Features, Characteristics, Quality, Types and Classifications (65%): To have

ready access to relevant, trialled and tested (good practice) methods on how


- 188 -

to analyse the highly influential cultural features, characteristics (perceptions,

behaviour, values etc.), qualities, types and classifications (strengths,

weaknesses etc.) of an organisation or group to help determine the most

efficient and effective way to change, adapt or align traditional work and social

habits, with the requirements of the proposed innovative change.

• To Determine the Need for Culture Change (75%): To ensure the successful

and sustainable delivery and application of innovative change will require the

above features, characteristics, qualities, types and classifications of an

existing culture (work and social undertakings of employees) to change; thus

better aligning themselves to the 'new way of doing things'.

• Work–Life Balance (70%): To ensure that members of an organisation strongly

align with a suitable, sustainable and efficient ‘work–life balance’ strategy (one

that satisfies both employee and family needs and expectations) by

considering; for example, flexible hours worked, health and wellbeing (such as

supply of fresh fruit in the workplace, health checks, and a greater emphasis

on exercise), social gatherings (family fun days), adventure and team-building

activities etc.

• Sub-Cultures (63%): To have ready access to relevant, trialled and tested

(good practice) methods on how to analyse the inherent, varying and often

contradicting sub-cultures of an organisation. This helps determine the most

efficient and effective way to change, adapt or align traditional work and social

habits, with the requirements of innovative change.

• Methods, Models and Frameworks (c) - Lowest Rated Culture Factor (60%): To

have ready access to relevant, trialled and tested (good practice) cultural

‘alignment’ and change models, methods and frameworks; to ensure

enhanced success in the delivery and application of innovative change.

In summary and for the purpose of this analysis, all nine dynamics were

confirmed as being relevant (≥60%) and key components of the proposed CDF.


- 189 -

6.2.6. Factor and Cluster Analysis

Referring to step three (activity two) of the Advanced Analysis Plan (Table 6-1),

two multivariate statistical procedures were used to evaluate the data:

• Factor analysis: To investigate whether there was any grouping of the analysis

variables that would lead to the identification of underlying constructs; and

• Cluster Analysis: To identify any grouping of expert panel member responses

to the underlying factors of the nine dynamics.

6.2.6.1. Factor Analysis

Factor Analysis is a statistical procedure to determine whether there is any

correlation or relationships between the nine dynamics (see Glossary). These

outputs are referred to as ‘factors’ or ‘constructs’.

The analysis of the survey data resulted in variable clustering such that only one

generic factor could be identified. The procedure also allows for the rotation of

variables. However, this exercise did not lead to any further insight due to the

responses from the panel being consistent, resulting in high correlations among

the variables. It is therefore suggested that future researcher efforts need to be

more conscious of the impact of sample size when using factor analysis Lingard

and Rowlinson (Unknown).

6.2.6.2. Cluster Analysis

Following the above, performing a Cluster Analysis (see Glossary) of the survey

data attempted to determine whether there was any correlation between the

panel of industry experts and their responses. Subsequent analysis showed that

four industry experts (two, four, five and nine) were classified together (Cluster

One), indicating a high correlation in their responses. However, the remaining

four (one, three, six and seven) could not be clearly correlated, that is, their


- 190 -

responses could either be classified in Cluster One, or in a separate Cluster Two

– which led to the discontinuation of this analysis.

6.2.7. Differential Analysis

Referring to step three (activity three) of the Advanced Analysis Plan (Table 6-1),

attempts were made to establish if any industry expert characteristics or

organisational factors outlined in Section 6.2.3, significantly influenced the results

(ratings) of one set of responses from another. That is, identifying only those

factors which are different or distinctive among possible alternatives Sharp

(c1997).

The Differential Analysis compared the following three industry expert

characteristics and four organisational factors (presented in Table 6-3), against

the relevance ratings received for the nine dynamics for survey rounds one and

two:

• Industry Expert Characteristics: Experience, Education Level and Employment

Length (in current role)

• Organisational Factors: Size, Public vs. Private Sector, Classification and

Geographic Location.

6.2.7.1. Differential Analysis: Based on Experience

The panel of experts indicated the level of experience, understanding and / or

knowledge they had in the delivery of change within organisations. Final analyses

of responses were found to be statistically significant (p=0.005, sig<0.05),

indicating a 99.5% reoccurrence rate in results; and only a 0.5% probability in not

gaining the same result when analysing further samples from the same

population – less than the nominal 0.05 sig. level of 5% (Section 6.1.1).

The outcomes from calculating the final mean response rate for the nine

dynamics are summarised in Table 6-5, showing panel members with:


- 191 -

• Limited to No Experience (Panel Member One): o End of Round-one (Excluding the Three Additional Dynamics identified in

Table 6-2):

The most relevant dynamic for this member was ‘Training and

Education’ (a) at 3.93 (78.6%); whilst rating

‘Culture’ as least relevant at 3.33 (66.6%).

o End of Round-two (Including the Three Additional Dynamics):

The panel member altered his round-one rating, confirming ‘Impact on

End Client Business’ (b1); ‘Training and Education’ (b2) and ‘Whole of

Business Life-cycle Cost’ (b3) as being the three most relevant

dynamics in the proposed CDF – rating these equally at 4 (80%); and

identified

‘Innovation’ as being least relevant at 3 (60%).

• Experienced (Remaining Seven Panel Members): o End of Round-one (Excluding the Three Additional Dynamics identified in

Table 6-2):

The most relevant dynamic for these experts was ‘Implementation’ (c) –

rating it at 3.98 (79.6%); whilst identifying

‘Culture’ as least relevant at 3.47 (69%).


The same seven experts altered their round-one responses, resulting in

‘Culture’ still being rated the least relevant dynamic at 3.45 (69%); and

identifying

‘Whole of Business Life-cycle Cost’ (d) as the most relevant dynamic in

the proposed CDF – rating it at 4.21 (84%).


- 192 -

Table 6-5: Mean Response: Experience in Delivering Change

ROUND NINE DYNAMICS

EXPERIENCE IN DELIVERING CHANGE

1 (No Relevance) to 5 (Most Relevant)

LIMITED / NONE (One)

YES (Remaining Seven)

1 i. Change 3.433 3.807

ii. Culture 3.333 3.47

iii. Impact on End Client Business*


- -

iv. Implementation 3.5 3.98 (c)

v. Innovation 3.6 3.725

vi. Knowledge-sharing and Management*


- -

vii. Leadership 3.781 3.96

viii. Training and Education 3.93 (a) 3.882

ix. Whole of Business Life-cycle Cost*


- -

2

FINAL ROUND

i. Change 3.5 3.902


iii. Impact on End Client Business 4 (b1) 3.857

iv. Implementation 3.333 3.776

v. Innovation 3 3.6

vi. Knowledge-sharing and Management 3.5 4.179


viii. Training and Education 4 (b2) 4.033

ix. Whole of Business Life-cycle cost 4 (b3) 4.21 (d)

[*] Refer to Table 6-2

In summary, at the end of survey round-two, all nine dynamics (as a whole) met

the minimum required relevance rate of 3 or above (≥60%), as specified in

Section 5.11 and were confirmed by panel members (with and without

experience, understanding, and / or knowledge in the delivery of change within

organisations) as key components of the proposed CDF for delivering innovative


(Lea

st R

elev

ant)

(Mos

t Rel

evan

t)

(Lea

st R

elev

ant)

(Mos

t Rel

evan

t)


- 193 -

6.2.7.2. Differential Analysis: Based on Education

Education levels were categorised according to panel members achieving either

a Post Graduate Degree or above; or a Bachelor Degree or below. The results

were found to be statistically significant (p=0.001, sig 0.05), indicating a 99.9%

significance rate for the data analysed; and only a 0.1% probability in not gaining

the same results when analysing further samples from the same population –

less than the nominal 0.05 sig. level of 5% (Section 6.1.1). The outcomes from

calculating the final mean response rate for the nine dynamics are summarised in

Table 6-6, showing panel members who achieved an education level of:

• Post Graduate Degree or Above (Four Panel Members): o End of Round-one (Excluding the Three Additional Dynamics identified in

Table 6-2):

The most relevant dynamic for these experts was ‘Implementation’ (a) at

3.81 (76%); and



Experts altered their round-one rating, confirming ‘Training and

Education’ (b) as being the most relevant dynamic in the proposed CDF

– rating it at 3.85 (77%); and


• Bachelors Degree or Below (Four Panel Members): o End of Round-one (Excluding the Three Additional Dynamics identified in

Table 6-2):

The most relevant dynamic for these experts was ‘Leadership’ (c) –

rating it at 4.11 (82%); and



Experts altered their round-one responses, resulting in ‘Culture’ still

being rated the least relevant dynamic at 3.6 (72%); and


the proposed CDF, rating it at 4.5 (90%).


- 194 -

Table 6-6: Mean Response: Education

ROUND NINE DYNAMICS

EDUCATION LEVEL


POST GRADUATE DEGREE OR ABOVE

(Four)

BACHELORS DEGREE OR BELOW

(Four)

1 i. Change 3.458 4.011



(Identified by Industry Expert Number Nine)- -

iv. Implementation 3.81 (a) 4.013


vi. Knowledge-sharing / Management*

(Identified by Industry Expert Number Two)- -

vii. Leadership 3.729 4.11 (c)

viii. Training and Education 3.633 4.081



2

FINAL ROUND

i. Change 3.641 3.978

ii. Culture 3.1 3.6

iii. Impact on End Client Business 3.833 3.9





viii. Training and Education 3.85 (b) 4.127

ix. Whole of Business Life-cycle Cost 3.667 4.5 (d)


In support of the above findings, at the end of survey round-two, all nine

dynamics (as a whole) met the minimum required relevance rate of 3 or above

(≥60%) as specified in Section 5.11. They were confirmed by panel members (of

all education levels) as key components of the proposed CDF.

(Lea

st R

elev

ant)

(Lea

st R

elev

ant)

(Mos

t Rel

evan

t)

(Mos

t Rel

evan

t)


- 195 -

6.2.7.3. Differential Analysis: Based on Employment Length

For this analysis, the length of an expert’s employment was categorised in terms

of being employed in his or her current position for either more or less than ten

years. The results were found to be statistically significant (p=0.001, sig 0.05),

indicating a 99.9% significance rate for the data analysed; and only a 0.1%

probability in not gaining the same results when analysing further samples from

the same population – less than the nominal 0.05 sig. level of 5% (Section 6.1.1).


dynamics are summarised in Table 6-7, showing panel members who were

employed in their current position for:

• Ten Years or Less (Three Panel Members): o End of Round-one (Excluding the Three Additional Dynamics identified in

Table 6-2):


3.65 (73%); and

‘Culture’ as least relevant at 2.98 (59.6%).


Experts altered their round-one rating, confirming ‘Whole of Business

Life-cycle Cost’ (b) as being the most relevant dynamic in the proposed

CDF – rating it at 4 (80%); and

‘Culture’ as being least relevant at 3.28 (65.6%).

• More than Ten Years (Remaining Five Panel Members): o End of Round-one (Excluding the Three Additional Dynamics identified in

Table 6-2):

The most relevant dynamic for these experts was ‘Leadership’ (c), rating

it at 4.31 (86%); and






- 196 -


the proposed CDF – rating it at 4.3 (86%).

Table 6-7: Mean Response: Employment Length

ROUND NINE DYNAMICS

EMPLOYED IN CURRENT POSITION


TEN YEARS OR LESS (Three)

GREATER THAN TEN YEARS (Five)

1 i. Change 3.367 4.084



(Identified by Industry Expert Number Nine) - -




(Identified by Industry Expert Number Two) - -

vii. Leadership 3.477 4.31 (c)




2

FINAL ROUND

i. Change 3.685 3.951








ix. Whole of Business Life-cycle Cost 4 (b) 4.3 (d)


(Lea

st R

elev

ant)

(Mos

t Rel

evan

t)

(Lea

st R

elev

ant)

(Mos

t Rel

evan

t)


- 197 -


the minimum required relevance rate of 3 or above (≥60%), as specified in

Section 5.11, and were confirmed by panel members (of all employment lengths)

as key components of the proposed CDF.

6.2.7.4. Differential Analysis: Based on Organisation Size

For this analysis, an organisation’s size was based on its annual turnover being

either greater or less than $100 million / annum. Subsequent results from

calculating the mean response rate for the nine dynamics were found to be not

statistically significant (p<0.28, sig 0.05), indicating a 72% significance rate for

the data analysed; yet 28% probability in not gaining the same results when

analysing further samples from the same population – well above the nominal

0.05 sig. level of 5% (Section 6.1.1). The outcomes from calculating the final

mean response rate for the nine dynamics are summarised in Table 6-8, showing

panel members from organisations with an annual turnover:

• Less than $100 million (Two Panel Members): o End of Round-one (Excluding the Three Additional Dynamics identified in

Table 6-2):

The most relevant dynamic for these experts was ‘Training and

Education’ (a) at 4.4 (88%); and

‘Change’ as least relevant at 3.9 (78%).


Experts altered their round-one rating, confirming ‘Impact on End Client

Business’ (b1) and ‘Whole of Business Life-cycle Cost’ (b2) as being the

most relevant dynamic in the proposed CDF – rating them equally at

4.25 (85%); and

‘Innovation’ as being least relevant at 3.2 (64%).

• More than $100 million (Remaining Six Panel Members): o End of Round-one (Excluding the Three Additional Dynamics identified in

Table 6-2):

The most relevant dynamic for these experts was ‘Implementation’ (c) –



- 198 -





‘Knowledge-sharing and Management’ (d) as the most relevant dynamic

in the proposed CDF – rating it at 4.2 (84%).

Table 6-8: Mean Response: Organisational Size (Annual turnover)

ROUND NINE DYNAMICS

ORGANISATION SIZE


>$100M (Six) <$100M (Two)

1 i. Change 3.73 3.9




iv. Implementation 3.9 (c) 4.02

v. Innovation 3.63 4


(Identified by Industry Expert Number Two)- -


viii. Training and Education 3.683 4.4 (a)



2

FINAL ROUND

i. Change 3.883 3.756


iii. Impact on End Client Business 3.75 4.25 (b1)



vi. Knowledge-sharing and Management 4.2 (d) 3.75



ix. Whole of Business Life-cycle Cost 4.167 4.25 (b2)


(Lea

st R

elev

ant)

(Mos

t Rel

evan

t)

(Lea

st R

elev

ant)

(Mos

t Rel

evan

t)


- 199 -

In support of the above findings, at the end of survey round-two, all nine

dynamics (as a whole) met the minimum required relevance rate of 3 or above

(≥60%) – as specified in Section 5.11 – and were confirmed by panel members

(from organisations with annual turnovers of less and greater than $100 million /

annum) as key components of the proposed CDF.

6.2.7.5. Differential Analysis: Based on Public vs. Private Sector

For this analysis, organisations were categorised into either Public or Private

sector organisations. Results were found to be statistically significant (p=0.001,

sig 0.05) indicating a 99.9% significance rate for the data analysed; and only a

0.1% probability in not gaining the same results when analysing further samples

from the same population – less than the nominal 0.05 sig. level of 5% (Section

6.1.1). Subsequent outcomes from calculating the final mean response rate for

the nine dynamics are summarised in Table 6-9, showing panel members from:

• Public Sector Organisations (Five Panel Members): o End of Round-one (Excluding the Three Additional Dynamics identified in

Table 6-2):


3.65 (73%); and





CDF – rating it at 4 (80%); and

‘Culture’ as being least relevant at 3.28 (65.6%).

• Private Sector Organisations (Remaining Three Panel Members): o End of Round-one (Excluding the Three Additional Dynamics identified in

Table 6-2):


Education’ (c) – rating it at 4.52 (90%); and



- 200 -




‘Knowledge-sharing and Management’ (d1) and ‘Whole of Business

Life-cycle Cost’ (d2) as the two most relevant dynamics in the proposed

CDF – rating them equally at 4.5 (90%).

Table 6-9: Mean Response: Public vs. Private Sector

ROUND NINE DYNAMICS

ORGANISATION SECTOR


PUBLIC (Five) PRIVATE (Three)

1 i. Change 3.56 4.022







(Identified by Industry Expert Number Two) - -


viii. Training and Education 3.339 4.52 (c)



2

FINAL ROUND

i. Change 3.704 4.096





vi. Knowledge-sharing and Management 3.85 4.5 (d1)



ix. Whole of Business Life-cycle Cost 4 (b) 4.5 (d2)


(Lea

st R

elev

ant)

(Mos

t Rel

evan

t)

(Lea

st R

elev

ant)

(Mos

t Rel

evan

t)


- 201 -

In support of the above findings, the mean response rate allocated to the nine

dynamics at the end of the second survey round stabilised at the minimum

required relevance rate of 3 or above (≥60%) – as specified in Section 5.11 – and

were confirmed by the panel of experts (from private and public sector

organisations) as key components of the CDF.

6.2.7.6. Differential Analysis: Based on Organisation Classification

For this analysis, organisations were categorised as Client, Contractor or

Consultant organisations. The results were statistically significant (p=0.001, sig

0.05), indicating a 99.9% significance rate for the data analysed; and only a 0.1%

probability in not gaining the same results when analysing further samples from

the same population – less than the nominal 0.05 sig. level of 5% (Section 6.1.1).


dynamics are summarised in Table 6-10, showing panel members from:

• Client Organisations (Three Panel Members): o End of Round-one (Excluding the Three Additional Dynamics identified in

Table 6-2):


3.6 (72%); and



The three experts altered their round-one rating, thereby confirming

‘Whole of Business Life-cycle Cost’ (b) as being the most relevant

dynamic in the proposed CDF – rating it at 4 (80%); and

‘Innovation’ as being least relevant at 3.3 (66%).

• Consultant Organisations (Two Panel Members): o End of Round-one (Excluding the Three Additional Dynamics identified in

Table 6-2):


Education’ (c) – rating it at 4.48 (79.5%); and


- 202 -

‘Change’ as least relevant at 3.9 (78%).


The two experts altered their round-one responses, resulting in

‘Innovation’ being rated the least relevant dynamic at 3.2 (64%); and

‘Impact on End Client Business’ (d1) and ‘Whole of Business Life-cycle

Cost’ (d2) as the two most relevant dynamics in the proposed CDF –

rating them equally at 4.25 (85%).

• Contractor Organisations (Remaining Three Panel Members): o End of Round-one (Excluding the Three Additional Dynamics identified in

Table 6-2):

The most relevant dynamic for these experts was ‘Leadership’ (e) –




The experts altered their round-one responses, resulting in ‘Culture’ still


‘Knowledge-sharing and Management’ (f) as the most relevant dynamic



- 203 -

Table 6-10: Mean Response: Organisation Classification

ROUND NINE DYNAMICS

ORGANISATION CLASSIFICATION


CLIENT

(Three)

CONSULTANT

(Two)

CONTRACTOR

(Three)

1 i. Change 3.504 3.9 3.9

ii. Culture 2.9 3.943 3.6


(Identified by Industry Expert Number Nine) - - -

iv. Implementation 3.6 (a) 4.02 4.13

v. Innovation 3.2 4 3.95


(Identified by Industry Expert Number Two)- - -

vii. Leadership 3.37 4.094 4.29 (e)

viii. Training and Education 3.19 4.48 (c) 4.05


(Identified by Industry Expert Number Nine)- - -

2 FINAL

ROUND

i. Change 3.69 3.76 4.081

ii. Culture 3.3 3.362 3.6

iii. Impact on End Client Business 3.5 4.25 (d1) 4

iv. Implementation 3.69 3.43 3.944

v. Innovation 3.4 3.2 3.867

vi. Knowledge-sharing and Management 3.92 3.75 4.5 (f)

vii. Leadership 3.58 3.62 4.12

viii. Training and Education 3.63 4.025 4.41

ix. Whole of Business Life-cycle Cost

4 (b) 4.25 (d2) 4.33



the minimum required relevance rate of 3 or above (≥60%) – as specified in

Section 5.11 – and were confirmed by panel members (from Client, Contractor

and Consultant organisations) as key components of the proposed CDF.

(Mos

t Rel

evan

t)

(Lea

st R

elev

ant)

(Mos

t Rel

evan

t)

(Mos

t Rel

evan

t)


- 204 -

6.2.7.7. Differential Analysis: Based on Geographic Location

The relevant response data was analysed to determine if the geographic location

in which an expert’s organisation mainly operated (Australia or internationally)

had a significant impact on their responses. The results for this analysis were

found to be statistically significant (p=0.001, sig 0.05), indicating a 99.9%

significance rate for the data analysed; and only a 0.1% probability in not gaining

the same results when analysing further samples from the same population –

less than the nominal 0.05 sig. level of 5% (Section 6.1.1).

Subsequent outcomes from calculating the final mean response rate for the nine

dynamics are summarised in Table 6-11, showing panel members from:

• Australia-based Organisations (Six Panel Members): o End of Round-one (Excluding the Three Additional Dynamics identified in

Table 6-2):


3.79 (76%); and





CDF – rating it at 4.1 (82%); and

‘Culture’ as being least relevant at 3.3 (66%).

• Internationally-based Organisations (Remaining Two Panel Members): o End of Round-one (Excluding the Three Additional Dynamics identified in

Table 6-2):


Education’ (c) – rating it at 4.37 (87%); and






- 205 -

‘Knowledge-sharing and Management’ (d) as the most relevant dynamic


Table 6-11: Mean Response: Geographic Location

ROUND NINE DYNAMICS

GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION


INTERNATIONAL

(Two)

AUSTRALIA

(Six)

1 i. Change 3.915 3.691




iv. Implementation 4.2 3.79 (a)





viii. Training and Education 4.37 (c) 3.671



2

FINAL ROUND

i. Change 4.139 3.756

ii. Culture 3.7 3.3

iii. Impact on End Client Business 4 3.833



vi. Knowledge-sharing and Management 4.75 (d) 3.875



ix. Whole of Business Life-cycle Cost 4.5 4.1 (b)


In support of the above findings, the mean response rate allocated to the nine

dynamics at the end of the second survey round stabilised at the minimum

required relevance rate of 3 or above (≥60%) – as specified in Section 5.11 – and

(Lea

st R

elev

ant)

(Mos

t Rel

evan

t)

(Lea

st R

elev

ant)

(Mos

t Rel

evan

t)


- 206 -

were confirmed by the panel of experts (from Australian and internationally-based

organisations) as key components of the CDF.

6.2.8. Differential Analysis of Relevant Data

The final (round-two) mean relevance ratings for each of the nine dynamics

presented in Section 2.7.2.6.2.7 were then ranked in accordance with the

following industry expert characteristics and organisational factors:

• Industry Expert Characteristics: Experience, Education Level and Employment

Length (in current role)

• Organisational Factors: Size, Public vs. Private Sector Classification and

Geographic Location.

6.2.8.1. Ranking of Dynamics: By Experience

The panel of expert responses in Section 3 provided the opportunity to rank the

relevance of the nine dynamics based on the level of experience, understanding

and / or knowledge they had in the delivery of change within organisations.

These findings are presented in Table 6-12 and Figure 6-13.


- 207 -

Table 6-12: Ranking of Dynamics: By Experience

EXPERIENCE IN DELIVERING CHANGE

FINAL RANKING OF DYNAMICS

(Based on Mean Relevance Rate)

MEAN RELEVANCE RATE

(Based on Experience)


1. WITH LIMITED TO NO EXPERIENCE

(One Industry Expert)

i. Impact on End Client Business and Whole of Business Life-cycle Cost 4 (MOST Relevant)

ii. Training and Education 3.95

iii. Leadership 3.698

iv. Change 3.5

v. Knowledge-sharing and Management 3.5

vi. Implementation 3.333

vii. Culture 3.238

viii. Innovation 3 (LEAST relevant)

2. WITH EXPERIENCE

(Remaining Seven Industry Experts)

i. Whole of Business Life-cycle Cost 4.214 (MOST Relevant)

ii. Knowledge-sharing and Management 4.179

iii. Training and Education 4.033

iv. Change 3.902

v. Impact on End Client Business 3.857

vi. Leadership 3.805

vii. Implementation 3.776

viii. Innovation 3.6

ix. Culture 3.448 (LEAST Relevant)


- 208 -

Figure 6-13: Ranking of Dynamics: By Experience

6.2.8.2. Ranking of Dynamics: By Education Level

Section 6.2.7.2 findings provided the opportunity to rank the nine dynamics

based on the education level of the panel and the mean relevance rating they

allocated to each of the dynamics. These findings are presented in Table 6-13

and Figure 6-14.

FINAL ROUND RANKING OF DYNAMICS: BY EXPERIENCE

4.00 3.953.70

3.50 3.50 3.33 3.243.00

4.21 4.18 4.03 3.90 3.86 3.81 3.783.60 3.45

0

1

2

3

4

5

Impa

ct o

n E

nd C

lient

Bus

ines

s &

Who

le o

fB

usin

ess

Life

cycl

e Co

st (M

ost r

elev

ant)

Trai

ning

and

Edu

catio

n

Lead

ersh

ip

Cha

nge

Know

ledg

e S

hari

ng a

nd M

anag

emen

t

Impl

emen

tatio

n

Cul

ture

Inno

vatio

n (L

east

rel

evan

t)

Who

le o

f Bus

ines

s Li

fecy

cle

Cos

t (M

ost r

elev

ant)

Know

ledg

e S

hari

ng a

nd M

anag

emen

t

Trai

ning

and

Edu

catio

n

Cha

nge

Impa

ct o

n E

nd C

lient

Bus

ines

s

Lead

ersh

ip

Impl

emen

tatio

n

Inno

vatio

n

Cul

ture

(Lea

st r

elev

ant)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

WITH NO EXPERIENCE (Only One) WITH EXPERIENCE (Remaining Seven)

Most Relevant Most Relevant Least Relevant Least Relevant

>60

%=RE

LEVAN

T

<60%

=IRRE

LEVA

NT

WITH EXPERIENCE (SEVEN) WITH LIMITED TO NO EXPERIENCE (ONE)

60% Threshold


- 209 -

Table 6-13: Ranking of Dynamics: By Education Level

EDUCATION LEVEL FINAL RANKING OF DYNAMICS


MEAN RELEVANCE RATE

(Based on Education Level)


1. POST GRADUATE DEGREE OR ABOVE

(Four Industry Experts)

i. Training and Education 3.85 (MOST relevant)

ii. Impact on End Client Business 3.833

iii. Implementation 3.711

iv. Knowledge-sharing and Management 3.667

v. Whole of Business Life-cycle Cost 3.667

vi. Change 3.641

vii. Leadership 3.622



2. BACHELORS DEGREE OR BELOW

(Four Industry Experts)

i. Whole of Business Life-cycle Cost 4.5 (MOST relevant)

ii. Change 3.978

iii. Knowledge-sharing and Management 4.35

iv. Training and Education 4.127







- 210 -

Figure 6-14: Ranking of Dynamics: By Education Level

6.2.8.3. Ranking of Dynamics: By Employment Length

Final round-two analyses of responses in Section 6.2.7.3 provided the

opportunity to rank the relevance of the nine dynamics based on the panel of

expert’s length of employment in their current position, that is, either more or less

than ten years. These findings are presented in Table 6-14 and Figure 6-15.

FINAL ROUND RANKING OF DYNAMICS: BY EDUCATION LEVEL

3.85 3.83 3.71 3.67 3.67 3.64 3.623.33

3.11

4.50

3.98

4.354.13

3.90 3.893.73 3.64 3.61

0

1

2

3

4

5

Trai

ning

and

Edu

catio

n (M

ost r

elev

ant)

Impa

ct o

n En

d C

lient

Bus

ines

s

Impl

emen

tatio

n

Know

ledg

e S

hari

ng a

nd M

anag

emen

t

Who

le o

f Bus

ines

s Li

fecy

cle

Cost

Chan

ge

Lead

ersh

ip

Inno

vatio

n

Cul

ture

(Lea

st R

elev

ant)

Who

le o

f Bus

ines

s Li

fecy

cle

Cos

t (M

ost r

elev

ant)

Chan

ge

Know

ledg

e S

hari

ng a

nd M

anag

emen

t

Trai

ning

and

Edu

catio

n

Impa

ct o

n En

d C

lient

Bus

ines

s

Lead

ersh

ip

Impl

emen

tatio

n

Inno

vatio

n

Cul

ture

(Lea

st R

elev

ant)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

POST GRADUATE DEGREE AND ABOVE (Four) BACHELORS DEGREE AND BELOW (Four)

>60

%=RE

LEVA

NT

<6

0%=IR

RELE

VANT


BACHELORS DEGREE AND BELOW POST GRADUATE DEGREE AND ABOVE

60% Threshold


- 211 -

Table 6-14: Ranking of Dynamics: By Employment Length

EMPLOYMENT LENGTH FINAL RANKING OF DYNAMICS


MEAN RELEVANCE RATE

(Based on Length of Employment)


1. TEN YEARS OR LESS

(Three Industry Experts)

i. Whole of Business Life-cycle Cost 4 (MOST relevant)



iv. Change 3.685

v. Training and Education 3.633

vi. Leadership 3.58

vii. Impact on End Client Business 3.5



2. TEN YEARS OR MORE

(Five Industry Experts)

i. Whole of Business Life-cycle 4.3 (MOST relevant)


iii. Knowledge-sharing and Management 4.2

iv. Impact on End Client Business 4.1

v. Change 3.951






- 212 -

Figure 6-15: Ranking of Dynamics: By Employment Length

6.2.8.4. Ranking of Dynamics: By Organisation Size

The panel of expert responses in Section 6.2.7.4 provided the opportunity to rank

the relevance of the nine dynamics based on the panel of expert organisation’s

FINAL ROUND RANKING OF DYNAMICS: BY EMPLOYMENT LENGTH

4.00 3.923.69 3.69 3.63 3.58 3.50 3.40

3.28

4.30 4.26 4.20 4.103.95 3.92

3.743.60 3.51

0

1

2

3

4

5

Who

le o

f Bus

ines

s Li

fecy

cle

Cost

(Mos

t rel

evan

t)

Know

ledg

e Sh

arin

g an

d M

anag

emen

t

Impl

emen

tatio

n

Chan

ge

Trai

ning

and

Edu

catio

n

Lead

ersh

ip

Impa

ct o

n En

d Cl

ient

Bus

ines

s

Inno

vatio

n

Cultu

re (L

east

Rel

evan

t)

Who

le o

f Bus

ines

s Li

fecy

cle

Cost

(Mos

t rel

evan

t)

Trai

ning

and

Edu

catio

n

Know

ledg

e Sh

arin

g an

d M

anag

emen

t

Impa

ct o

n En

d Cl

ient

Bus

ines

s

Chan

ge

Lead

ersh

ip

Impl

emen

tatio

n

Inno

vatio

n

Cultu

re (L

east

Rel

evan

t)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

TEN YEARS OR LESS (Three) GREATER THAN TEN YEARS (Five)

>6

0%=R

ELEV

ANT

<

60%

=IR

RE

LE

VA

NT


MORE THAN TEN YEARS (FIVE EXPERTS TEN YEARS OR LESS (THREE EXPERTS)

60% Threshold


- 213 -

size, that is, having an annual turnover of either greater or less than $100 million.


Table 6-15: Ranking: By Organisation Size

ORGANISATION SIZE FINAL RANKING OF DYNAMICS


MEAN RELEVANCE RATE

(Based on the Size of the Organisation)


1. >$100M

(Six Industry Experts)

i. Knowledge-sharing and Management 4.208 (MOST relevant)

ii. Whole of Business Life-cycle Cost 4.167


iv. Change 3.883

v. Leadership 3.849





2. <$100M

(Remaining Two Industry Experts)

i. Impact on End Client Business and Whole of Business Life-cycle Cost 4.25 (MOST relevant)


iii. Change 3.756


v. Leadership 3.62


vii. Culture 3.362

viii. Innovation 3.2 (LEAST Relevant)


- 214 -

Figure 6-16: Ranking: By Organisation Size

6.2.8.5. Ranking of Dynamics: By Public vs. Private Sector

Section 6.2.7.5 final round-two analyses of organisation sector-related responses

provided the opportunity to rank the relevance of the nine dynamics This ranking

is presented in Table 6-16 and Figure 6-17 and is based on the main industry

sector in which the panel of industry experts operate in (Public or Private).

FINAL ROUND RANKING OF DYNAMICS: BY ORGANISATION SIZE

4.21 4.174.02

3.88 3.85 3.82 3.75 3.633.44

4.254.03

3.76 3.75 3.623.43 3.36

3.20

0

1

2

3

4

5

Know

ledg

e S

hari

ng a

nd M

anag

emen

t (M

ost r

elev

ant)

Who

le o

f Bus

ines

s Li

fecy

cle

Cost

Trai

ning

and

Edu

catio

n

Cha

nge

Lead

ersh

ip

Impl

emen

tatio

n

Impa

ct o

n E

nd C

lient

Bus

ines

s

Inno

vatio

n

Cul

ture

(Lea

st R

elev

ant)

Impa

ct o

n E

nd C

lient

Bus

ines

s &

Who

le o

f Bus

ines

s Li

fecy

cle

Cos

t(M

ost r

elev

ant)

Trai

ning

and

Edu

catio

n

Cha

nge

Kno

wle

dge

Sha

ring

and

Man

agem

ent

Lead

ersh

ip

Impl

emen

tatio

n

Cul

ture

Inno

vatio

n (L

east

Rel

evan

t)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

>$100M (Six) <$100M (Two)

>6

0%=R

ELEV

ANT

<6

0%=I

RR

ELE

VA

NT


<$100M (TWO EXPERTS) >$100M (SIX EXPERTS)

60% Threshold


- 215 -

Table 6-16: Ranking of Dynamics: By Public vs. Private Sector

INDUSTRY SECTOR FINAL RANKING OF DYNAMICS


MEAN RELEVANCE RATE

(Based on Industry Sector)


1. PUBLIC

(Five Industry Experts)

i. Whole of Business Life-cycle Cost 4 (MOST relevant)



iv. Change 3.704






2. PRIVATE


i. Knowledge-sharing and Management & Whole of Business Life-cycle Cost

4.5 (MOST relevant)


iii. Impact on End Client Business 4.167

iv. Change 4.096

v. Leadership 4.007


vii. Innovation 3.733

viii. Culture 3.65 (LEAST Relevant)


- 216 -

Figure 6-17: Ranking of Dynamics: By Public vs. Private Sector

FINAL ROUND RANKING OF DYNAMICS: BY INDUSTRY SECTOR

4.003.85 3.77 3.70 3.70 3.66 3.64

3.40 3.28

4.50 4.444.17 4.10 4.01

3.863.73 3.65

0

1

2

3

4

5

Who

le o

f Bus

ines

s Li

fecy

cle

Cost

(Mos

t rel

evan

t)

Know

ledg

e Sh

arin

g an

d M

anag

emen

t

Trai

ning

and

Edu

catio

n

Chan

ge

Impa

ct o

n E

nd C

lient

Bus

ines

s

Lead

ersh

ip

Impl

emen

tatio

n

Inno

vatio

n

Cultu

re (L

east

Rel

evan

t)

Know

ledg

e Sh

arin

g an

d M

anag

emen

t & W

hole

of B

usin

ess

Life

cycl

e Co

st (M

ost r

elev

ant)

Trai

ning

and

Edu

catio

n

Impa

ct o

n E

nd C

lient

Bus

ines

s

Chan

ge

Lead

ersh

ip

Impl

emen

tatio

n

Inno

vatio

n

Cultu

re (L

east

Rel

evan

t)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

PUBLIC (Five) PRIVATE (Three)

>6

0%=R

ELEV

ANT

<

60%

=IR

RE

LE

VA

NT


PRIVATE (THREE EXPERTS) PUBLIC (FIVE EXPERTS)

60% Threshold


- 217 -

6.2.8.6. Ranking of Dynamics: By Organisation Classification

The panel of expert responses in Section 6.2.7.6 provided the opportunity to rank

the relevance of the nine dynamics based on their organisation being classified

mainly as a client; contractor; or consultant (which includes Academic and R&D).


Figure 6-18: Ranking of Dynamics: By Organisation Classification

FINAL ROUND RANKING OF DYNAMICS: BY ORGANISATION OR TEAM CLASSIFICATION

4.00 3.923.69 3.69 3.63 3.58 3.50 3.40 3.30

4.254.03

3.76 3.75 3.623.43 3.36

3.20

4.50 4.41 4.334.12 4.08 4.00 3.94 3.87

3.60

0

1

2

3

4

5

Who

le o

f Bus

ines

s Li

fecy

cle

Cos

t (M

ost R

elev

ant)

Kno

wle

dge

Sha

ring

and

Man

agem

ent

Impl

emen

tatio

n

Chan

ge

Trai

ning

and

Edu

catio

n

Lead

ersh

ip

Impa

ct o

n En

d C

lient

Bus

ines

s

Inno

vatio

n

Cultu

re (L

east

Rel

evan

t)

Impa

ct o

n E

nd C

lient

Bus

ines

s &

Who

le o

f Bus

ines

s Li

fecy

cle

Cos

t (M

ost R

elev

ant)

Trai

ning

and

Edu

catio

n

Chan

ge

Kno

wle

dge

Sha

ring

and

Man

agem

ent

Lead

ersh

ip

Impl

emen

tatio

n

Cul

ture

Inno

vatio

n (le

ast r

elev

ant)

Kno

wle

dge

Sha

ring

and

Man

agem

ent (

Mos

t Rel

evan

t)

Trai

ning

and

Edu

catio

n

Who

le o

f Bus

ines

s Li

fecy

cle

Cos

t

Lead

ersh

ip

Chan

ge

Impa

ct o

n En

d C

lient

Bus

ines

s

Impl

emen

tatio

n

Inno

vatio

n

Cul

ture

(lea

st r

elev

ant)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

CLIENT (Three) CONSULTANT (Two) CONTRACTOR (Three)

>60

%=REL

EVANT

<6

0%=IR

RELE

VANT

Most Relevant

Least Relevant

>$100M (SIX EXPERTS) <$100M (TWO EXPERTS)<$100M (TWO EXPERTS)

Most Relevant

Least Relevant

Most Relevant

Least Relevant

60% Threshold


- 218 -

Table 6-17: Ranking of Dynamics: By Organisation Classification

CLASSIFICATION OF ORGANISATION

FINAL RANKING OF DYNAMICS (Based on Mean Relevance Rate)

MEAN RELEVANCE RATE (Based on Organisation

Classification)


1. CLIENT


i. Whole of Business Life-cycle cost 4 (MOST Relevant)



iv. Change 3.685

v. Training and Education 3.633

vi. Leadership 3.58




2. CONSULTANT

(Two Industry Experts)

i. Impact on End Client Business and Whole of Business Life-cycle cost

4.25 (MOST Relevant)


iii. Change 3.756


v. Leadership 3.62


vii. Culture 3.362

viii. Innovation 3.2 (LEAST Relevant)

3. CONTRACTOR


i. Knowledge-sharing and Management 4.5 (MOST Relevant)


iii. Whole of Business Life-cycle cost 4.333

iv. Leadership 4.118

v. Change 4.081

vi. Impact on End Client Business 4





- 219 -

6.2.8.7. Ranking of Dynamics: By Geographic Location

Final round-two analyses of responses in Section 6.2.7.7 provided the

opportunity to rank the relevance of the nine dynamics based on the geographic

location in which an expert’s organisation mainly operated (Australia or

internationally-based). These findings are presented in Table 6-18 and Figure

6-19. This ranking was based on the:

Table 6-18: Ranking of Dynamics: By Geographic Location

GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION

FINAL RANKING OF DYNAMICS (Based on Mean Relevance Rate)

MEAN RELEVANCE RATE (Based on Geographic Location)


1. INTERNATIONAL

(Two Industry Experts)

i. Knowledge-sharing and Management 4.75 (MOST Relevant)


iii. Whole of Business Life-cycle cost 4.5

iv. Leadership 4.24

v. Change 4.139


vii. Impact on End Client Business 4



2. AUSTRALIAN

(Six Industry Experts)

i. Whole of Business Life-cycle cost 4.08 (MOST Relevant)


iii. Impact on End Client Business 3.833

iv. Training and Education 3.825

v. Change 3.756






- 220 -

Figure 6-19: Ranking of Dynamics: By Geographic Location

FINAL ROUND RANKING OF DYNAMICS: BY GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION

4.754.62

4.50

4.244.14

4.02 4.00 3.903.73

4.083.88 3.83 3.83 3.76

3.64 3.623.40 3.32

0

1

2

3

4

5

Kno

wle

dge

Shar

ing

and

Man

agem

ent (

Mos

t Rel

evan

t)

Trai

ning

and

Edu

catio

n

Who

le o

f Bus

ines

s Li

fecy

cle

Cos

t

Lead

ersh

ip

Cha

nge

Impl

emen

tatio

n

Impa

ct o

n E

nd C

lient

Bus

ines

s

Inno

vatio

n

Cul

ture

(Lea

st R

elev

ant)

Who

le o

f Bus

ines

s Li

fecy

cle

Cost

(Mos

t Rel

evan

t)

Kno

wle

dge

Sha

ring

and

Man

agem

ent

Impa

ct o

n E

nd C

lient

Bus

ines

s

Trai

ning

and

Edu

catio

n

Cha

nge

Lead

ersh

ip

Impl

emen

tatio

n

Inno

vatio

n

Cul

ture

(Lea

st R

elev

ant)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

INTERNATIONAL (Two) AUSTRALIAN (Six)

>6

0%=R

ELEV

ANT

<6

0%=I

RR

ELE

VA

NT


AUSTRALIAN (SIX EXPERTS) INTERNATIONAL (TWO EXPERTS)

60% Threshold


- 221 -

6.3. Summary: Chapter Six – Key Findings

This chapter provides a detailed analysis of data collated during the two survey

rounds. A consensus in responses from the panel was achieved by the end of the

second round, where the mean results stabilised at the minimum required

relevance rate of 3 or above (≥60%), thereby confirming all nine dynamics:

Change, Innovation, Implementation, Culture, Leadership, Training and

Education, Knowledge-sharing and Management, Impact on End Client and other

Key Stakeholders, and Whole of Business Life-cycle cost as being highly relevant

and key components of a the CDF for delivering innovative change within an

organisation.

This timely resolution in reaching a consensus also resembles the ‘Abbreviated

Delphi Method’ referred to in Chapter Five by Paulson (1995) as a means of

gaining faster results and focusing on reaching a swift consensus in responses

from an expert panel within two rounds.

A summary of this chapter’s key findings follow:

• Profile analysis;

• Differential analysis; and

• Relevance ranking of the nine dynamics.

6.3.1. Profile Analysis of Industry Experts

Table 6-19 provides a summary of key findings from the Profile Analysis of each

expert panel member and the organisations they represent.


- 222 -

Table 6-19: Profile Analysis of Industry Experts – Seven Key Findings

PROFILE ANALYSIS OF NINE INDUSTRY EXPERTS – SEVEN KEY FINDINGS

1. Although unavailable to take part in the second round of the survey (Section 6.2.1), expert number

eight’s background information was still included in the Profile Analysis (Section 6.2.3), yet excluded

from the final analyses process by reducing the total number of respondents by one.

2. Most industry experts had a Bachelors Degree or higher (Section 6.2.3.1).

3. Each of the industry experts performed a different yet senior role within their respective organisations

(Section 6.2.3.2).

4. Half of the industry experts had ten years or more of employment within their current role, with a

maximum of 33 years (Section 6.2.3.3).

5. There was an equal distribution of organisational classification (Client, Contractor and Consultant) and

sector (private vs. public) (Sections 6.2.3.4 and 6.2.3.6).

6. Most industry experts were from organisations having greater than $100 million average annual

turnover (Section 6.2.3.5).

7. The majority of expert panel members were from Australian-based organisations (Section 6.2.7.7).

6.3.2. Differential Analysis

A Differential Analysis of industry expert characteristics and organisational

factors is presented in Section 6.2.7, and then compared to the relevance ratings

received for the nine dynamics, in an attempt to determine if any of these

characteristics or factors significantly influenced the results (ratings) of one set of

responses from another during the two survey rounds. Table 6-20 provides a

summary of the most significant findings.


- 223 -

Table 6-20: Differential Analysis – Seven Key Findings

PANEL MEMBER PROFILE SEVEN KEY FINDINGS

1. EXPERIENCE IN DELIVERING CHANGE

Industry experts’

experience, understanding

and / or knowledge in the

delivery of change within

organisations

LIMITED TO NO EXPERIENCE EXPERIENCED

• Rated ‘Innovation’ as the least

relevant dynamic

• Equally rated ‘Impact on End-

client Business’, ‘Training and

Education’ and ‘Whole of

Business Life-cycle cost’ the

highest, and therefore the three

most relevant dynamics in the

CDF

• Rated ‘Culture’ as the least

relevant dynamic

• Rated both ‘Knowledge-sharing

and Management’ and ‘Whole of

business Life-cycle cost’ the

highest, and therefore the two

most relevant dynamics in the

CDF

2. EDUCATION LEVEL

Industry experts having

either a Post Graduate

Degree or above or a

Bachelor Degree or below

POST GRAD. DEGREE OR ABOVE

BACHELOR DEGREE AND BELOW

• Rated ‘Training and Education’

the highest, and therefore the

most relevant dynamic in the

CDF

• Rated all nine dynamics as being

generally more relevant than the

higher educated industry experts

• Rated ‘Whole of Business Life-

cycle cost’ the highest, and

therefore the most relevant

dynamic in the CDF

• All experts rated ‘Culture’ as being the least relevant dynamic in the CDF

3. EMPLOYMENT LENGTH

Industry experts being in

their current position for ten

years or more or less than

ten years

> 10 YEARS EMPLOYMENT < 10 YEARS EMPLOYMENT

All industry experts (no matter what employment length):

• Rated ‘Culture’ as being the least relevant dynamic

• Rated ‘Whole of Business Life-cycle cost’ the highest, and therefore the

most relevant dynamic in the CDF

4. ORGANISATION SIZE

Organisations with an

annual turnover being either

greater than $100 million or

less than $100 million

> $100 MILLION < $100 MILLION

• Rated ‘Culture’ as being the

least relevant dynamic

• Rated ‘Knowledge-sharing and

Management’ the highest, and

therefore the most relevant

dynamic in the CDF

• Rated ‘Innovation’ as being the least

relevant dynamic

• Rated both ‘Impact on End Client

Business’ and ‘Whole of Business

Life-cycle cost’ the highest and

therefore the two most relevant

dynamics in the CDF



- 224 -

PANEL MEMBER PROFILE SEVEN KEY FINDINGS

5. PUBLIC VS. PRIVATE SECTOR ORGANISATIONS

Organisations that fell under

the Private or Public Sector

PUBLIC SECTOR PRIVATE SECTOR

• Rated ‘Whole of Business Life-

cycle cost’ as being the most

relevant dynamic in the CDF

• Rated both ‘Knowledge-sharing and

Management’ and ‘Whole of

Business Life-cycle cost’ both the

highest and therefore the two most

relevant dynamics in the CDF

• All industry experts from both the private and public sector organisations

rated ‘Culture’ as being the least relevant dynamic in the CDF for

delivering innovative change within an organisation

6. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION

The geographic location in

which a industry expert’s

organisation mainly operate

In - classified as being either

Australian or Internationally

based

AUSTRALIAN INTERNATIONAL

• Industry experts from Australian

organisations rated ‘Whole of

Business Life-cycle cost’ as

being the most relevant

dynamic in the CDF

• Industry experts from Internationally-

based organisations rated the

‘Knowledge-sharing and

Management’ the highest and

thereby most relevant dynamic in

the CDF

• Industry experts from both Australian and Internationally-based

organisations equally rated ‘Culture’ as being the least relevant dynamic

in the CDF

7. ORGANISATION CLASSIFICATION

Organisations classified as

either a Client; Contractor or

Consultant

CLIENT CONTRACTOR

CONSULTANT

(Including academic &

R&D organisations)

• Rated ‘Whole of

Business Life-cycle

cost’ the highest and

therefore most

relevant dynamic

• Rated ‘Culture’ as

being the least

relevant dynamic in

the CD

• Rated ‘Knowledge-

sharing and

Management’ the

highest and

therefore most

relevant dynamic in

the CDF

• Rated ‘Culture’ as

being the least

relevant dynamic

(similar to the

industry experts

from client

organisations)

• Rated both ‘Impact

on End Client

Business’ and

‘Whole of Business

Life-cycle cost’ the

highest and

therefore two most

relevant dynamics

in the CDF

• Rated ‘Innovation’

as being the least

relevant dynamic


- 225 -

6.3.3. Relevance of Dynamics

The relevance and rank of the nine dynamics in terms of being key components

of the proposed CDF for delivering innovative change within an organisation are

presented in Table 6-21 and Figure 7-20.

Table 6-21: Relevance and Rank of Nine Dynamics

NINE DYNAMICS

RANK RELEVANCE

1. Whole of Business Life-Cycle Cost (Highest)

• MOST relevant @ 84% • Additional dynamic identified by expert # nine during round-

one

2. Knowledge Sharing / Management

• Additional dynamic identified by expert # two during round-one @ 82% relevancy

3. Training and Education • @ 80% relevancy

4. Impact on End Client Business and Change

• Both @ 78% relevancy: o Impact on End Client: Additional dynamic identified by

expert # nine during round-one o Change (Hypothesised)

5. Leadership • @ 76% relevancy

6. Implementation • @ 74% relevancy

7. Innovation • @ 70% relevancy

8. Culture (Lowest) • LEAST relevant @ 68%

A mild concern from this research’s findings is the ‘understated’ relevance of the

‘Culture’ component (although 68%). It is suggested that should the panel of

experts have been drawn from different / international culture groups (in a socio-

political sense), then awareness of cultural diversity and its relevance in the

decision-making process for delivering innovative change within an organisation

may have been more convincing.

In support of the findings presented in this chapter, although all nine dynamics

(as a whole) were confirmed by the panel of experts as key components of the

CDF, further investigation and analysis is proposed to develop these dynamics

and their underlying factors by developing and testing a more comprehensive


- 226 -

‘Innovative Change Decision-making Framework’ (ICDF); underpinned by a

dedicated ‘Innovative Change Delivery Process’ (ICDP); an ‘Innovative Change

Delivery Analysis’ (ICDA) program; and a ‘Innovative Change Delivery Guide’

(ICDG).

Figure 6-20: Relevance and Rank of Nine Dynamics

Projected outcomes will assist in the sustainable delivery of innovative change

within today’s geographically dispersed consortium of building and construction

industry organisations. These proposals are discussed at greater length in

Chapter Eight.

84%

78%

82%

80% 76%

68%

74%

70%

78%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100CHANGE

INNOVATION

IMPLEMENTATION

CULTURE ("Human Factor")

LEADERSHIP ("Champion")TRAINING / EDUCATION

KNOWLEDGE SHARING / MANAGEMENT (Suggested by Industry Expert #2 - Round 1)

IMPACT ON END CLIENT BUSINESS (Suggested by Industry Expert #9 - Round 1)

WHOLE OF BUSINESS LIFECYCLE COST (Suggested by Industry Expert #9 - Round 1)

Decision-making Dynamics that fall within the Outer-relevancy Circle (60 to 100%) Are Considered RELEVANT key components of a ‘Conceptual Decision-making Framework’ for delivering innovative change within an organisation

Decision-making Dynamics that fall within the Inner-relevancy Circle (0 to 59%) Are

Considered IRRELEVANT within a ‘Conceptual Decision-making Framework’ for delivering

innovative change within an organisation

60% Threshold

WHOLE OF BUSINESS LIFECYCLE COST

84%

(Most Relevant)

RELEVANCY OF NINE DECISION-MAKING DYNAMICS AS KEY COMPONENTS OF A DECISION-MAKING FRAMEWORK FOR DELIVERING INNOVATIVE CHANGE WITHIN ORGANISATIONS

CULTURE

68%

(Least Relevant)

Chapter Eight – A Conceptual Decision-making Framework (CDF)

- 227 -

7. CHAPTER SEVEN: A CONCEPTUAL DECISION-MAKING FRAMEWORK (CDF)

An effective decision-making process is arguably at the heart of many successful

business-related operations, plans, goals or strategies within an organisation.

Project-based organisations such as those of the construction industry are to

make more informed decisions pertaining to the successful delivery and

application of innovative change within a highly competitive arena. The primary

research aim was to first identify and underline the need for organisations to

recognise the various challenges and opportunities that influence the delivery

and application of innovative change; second to develop these ‘influences’ into

measurable decision-making dynamics; and finally to test the relevancy of these

in terms of being key components of a CDF for delivering innovative change

within organisations.

As a result, the nine dynamics of Change, Innovation, Implementation, Culture,

Leadership, Training and Education, Knowledge-sharing and Management;

Impact on End Client and other Key Stakeholders, and Whole of Business Life-

cycle Cost, were identified, tested and validated as being key components of the

proposed CDF (as presented in Figure 7-1).


- 228 -

Figure 7-1: ‘Conceptual Decision-making Framework’ (CDF)

The above nine dynamics form the foundation of the CDF and are elaborated on

individually in Table 7-1.

Additional Dynamics identified; tested; and validated by the panel of experts as being highly relevant and key components of the proposed CDF

Dynamics Hypothesised – tested and validated by the panel of experts as being highly relevant and key components of the proposed CDF

A CONCEPTUAL

‘DECISION-MAKING FRAMEWORK’

FOR DELIVERING INNOVATIVE CHANGE

IN ORGANISATIONS

IMPLEMENTATION

CHANGE

INNOVATION

CULTURE

TRAINING AND

EDUCATION LEADERSHIP

9

2

1

8

3

7

6

5

4KNOWLEDGE

SHARING / MANAGEMENT

IMPACT ON END CLIENT /

KEY STAKEHOLDER

WHOLE OF BUSINESS LIFECYCLE

COST


- 229 -

Table 7-1: Proposed Conceptual Decision-making Framework (CDF)

NINE DECISION-MAKING DYNAMICS

FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS

1. PREPARE FOR CHANGE

"Is the organisation ready, able and flexible enough towards accepting change itself, that is, have you (as

decision makers) properly considered and evaluated the various intricacies, challenges, drivers, barriers, threats and opportunities that are distinctive to the work environment; and then

effectively responded to these issues by identifying, recommending and

proactively employing the most suitable change methods, models,

frameworks etc.?"

The decision-making process for delivering innovative change (new or improved way of ‘doing something’) within an organisation, is directly influenced by the following change factors:

i. Need for Change: Ensure the organisation has taken into account the following influences to help promote the 'need' for an organisation to deliver any form of innovative change:

o Globalisation of the economy: Will the proposed delivery of innovative change challenge current and / or increase future local and international business opportunities?

o Urgency: Is the need for delivering innovative change based on the perceived need to simply do ‘things’ differently, to help fuel the need to 'survive', or to enhance future competitiveness?

o Advancement: Will the proposed innovative change satisfy the expected innovative advancement of the organisation, team, industry or sector. Is it enough to meet the advancements in technology, business, manufacturing, installation, erecting, processes, or methods of procurement etc.?

o Labour shortages: Will the delivery of innovative change result in the need to employ additional resources, experiences, specialists etc.

o Expectations: Will the delivery of innovative change alter (increase or decrease) employee, team member, client and other key stakeholder expectations in terms of time, cost, quality etc.?

ii. Change Drivers: Ensure the organisation has identified key change factors and determined ways of incorporating these to help drive and convince employees and other key stakeholders to readily adopt the delivery and application process.

iii. Overcoming Challenges: Ensure the organisation has got access to relevant, trialled and tested actions and approaches that can help employees and team members overcome their inherent fear and resistant approach towards ‘doing things’ differently.

iv. Cost vs. Timing vs. Difficulty: Ensure the proposed innovative change is delivered at a suitable point-in-time or preferred instant, that is, when it is not overbearing (in terms of resources etc.) and most cost effective for the organisation. Such factors may contribute towards achieving sustainable change.

v. Methods, Models and Frameworks: Ensure the organisation has got access to / applied the most relevant, trialled and tested (good practice) change models, methods and frameworks to help ensure a more successful and sustainable delivery of innovative change?



- 230 -



2. MEASURE INNOVATIVE CAPABILITIES

"Is the organisation ready (in terms of its efficiency and responsiveness) to generate and then apply innovative

change within their current work environment?”

For example:

“Do they have the innovative capabilities to recognise, create and /

or apply innovative change?”

“Do they need to be more or less innovative?”

“Is this the most appropriate innovative change for them to

enhance their overall performances, efficiencies etc.?”

Adhering to the following innovation factors and tasks will assist in appraising an organisation’s capability and competency levels in delivering and applying innovative change:

i. Strategic Management: Ensure the organisation has access to relevant, trialled and tested (good practice) strategic approaches, actions and methods; to better manage, control, govern and delegate tasks pertaining to the successful delivery and application of innovative change.

ii. Innovation Type: Ensure the organisation determines the most appropriate ‘type’ of innovative change for it to pursue, as not all innovative solutions and initiatives suit everyone.

o This can be achieved by, for example, identifying and measuring the potential business- and strategic-related benefits, profitability aspects, risks, and any other relevant and influencing factors of delivering and applying the innovative change in question.

iii. Innovation Drivers: Ensure the organisation identifies and incorporates all factors that can help convince employees and other key stakeholders to accelerate and revitalise their desire to become more innovative.

iv. Innovation Challenges and Barriers: Similar to the above, ensure the organisation identifies ways to overcome the key concerns that tend to challenge innovation-related activities and initiatives.

3. IMPROVED IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS

"Have you (as decision makers) effectively accessed, recommended, and / or employed the most suitable

and sustainable implementation strategy or process for the innovative change — one that best meets the

organisation’s overall strategy, aims, goals and business objectives?"

The sustainable delivery of innovative change within an organisation can be achieved, by enforcing and promoting the following activities throughout and beyond the implementation process: i. Reinforce Trust: Ensure enhanced levels of trust between co-

employees, team members, management, clients and other key stakeholders are achieved and maintained by, for example: o Arranging regular social events and informal discussions;

building friendships, advocating transparent personal and business relationships, by establishing open communication lines; and by promoting an elevated level of awareness in helping employees, team members and their superiors overcome any work- or personal-related challenges, stresses etc.

ii. Improve Office Design and Working Environments: Ensure increased efficiencies and value-adding interaction between employees and project team members are attained and maintained by, for example: o Promoting an open-door or open-desk policy; providing

access to adequate discussion rooms; and offering work environments that are clean, comfortable and inviting, with enhanced light, acoustic, safety and air qualities etc.

iii. A Voluntary Job / Task Rotation Policy: Promote a ‘Learning from others’ philosophy. This can potentially increase employee interaction, motivation, business understanding, personal development, know-how, skill sets, and fuel ‘innovative thinking’ throughout the life cycle of innovative change.



- 231 -



iv. Forge Strong Relationships: In line with the above trust factors, stronger relationships between senior management, decision makers, employees and other key stakeholders are to be maintained. This can be achieved by being ‘transparent’ about; for example, freely sharing and clearly explaining what factors (business, strategic, economic, survival, competitive, successes, failures, challenges, benefits, consequences, strengths and weaknesses etc.) are taken into account when deciding on whether or not to accept or decline the delivery of innovative change within an organisation.

v. Provide Effective Rewards and Incentives: By identifying and promoting appropriate and effective reward, appraisal and incentive programs to help reinforce employees, team, managers, clients and other key stakeholders to behave appropriately, that is, to readily embrace innovative change by satisfying their ‘what’s in it for me?’ approach towards ‘doing something differently’

vi. Increase Participation: By increasing the participation and contributory levels of employees and other key stakeholders during the decision-making process on whether or not to deliver innovative change, will: o inject a much-needed sense of ownership that is required to

promote enhanced levels of ‘acceptance’ towards decisions made;

o discourage the ‘not invented here’ syndrome and promote a ‘by us for us’ philosophy; and

o reduce the invisible boundaries, levels, and restricted communication lines that are notoriously formed (in many cases instinctively and without thinking) by organisational and key stakeholder hierarchies.

vii. Business Goals and Objectives: Ensure the implementation and application process fulfils (meets) at least one or a combination of pre-determined business and / or strategic goals and objectives of the organisation.

viii. Strategies, Methods, Models and Frameworks: Ensure the organisation has ready access to relevant, trialled and tested (good practice) implementation strategies, methods, models and frameworks that best serve the needs of:

o the proposed innovative change; and

o the organisation's existing business and social environment, that is, environments of end users and other key stakeholders affected by the implementation and application process.

ix. Timing, Prioritisation and Delegation: Similar to reinforcing and promoting the 'need' for an organisation to undergo any form of change, one is to ensure the implementation process incorporates the following three actions:

o Timing: Determine a suitable point in time for an implementation and application process to get underway;

o Prioritisation: Clearly identify and manage what takes precedence (actions, tasks, milestones etc.) pre-, during and after the implementation process; and

o Delegation: Determine who does what and when (resource management) pre-, during and after the implementation process.



- 232 -



x. Barriers and Challenges: Clearly identify and determine ways to best manage any key concerns / contributing factors that tend to challenge the implementation process.

xi. Success Factors: Determine, promote and then incorporate any critical success factors that may help ensure a sustainable implementation process.

4. RECOGNISE AND EVALUATE CULTURE AND SUB-CULTURE INFLUENCES

"Have you (as decision makers) effectively evaluated the organisation deeply embedded culture and sub-

culture types, personalities, characteristics, and classifications

etc.”

That is:

“Have the entrenched human factors that tend to influence (positively and

negatively) the delivery and application process of innovative

change within current work environment been identified,

assessed and properly understood?"

An organisation’s deeply embedded culture and sub-cultures may influence or be influenced by the delivery of innovative change. Its evaluation and monitoring is an essential undertaking within the CDF. It is therefore proposed that the following culture-related factors are taken into consideration throughout this component of the decision-making process: i. Culture Change Philosophy: Adopting a sustainable 'culture

change philosophy' is essential and achievable by convincing members to readily change their current and traditional ways of ‘doing things’. This can be achieved through; for example, acknowledging and gaining a better understanding of employee and team member perceptions, beliefs, value sets and attitude towards a proposed innovative change in order to adopt the new or alternative way of essentially ‘doing the same thing’, only better and more efficiently etc.

ii. Success Factors: To bring about the above change in culture, organisations are to: o reinforce and maintain a relationship of ‘trust’ between co-

workers, senior management, employees, clients and other key internal and external stakeholders;

o offer pragmatic reward and effective incentive packages to help answer the ‘what’s in it for me?’ factor; and

o promote increased employee, team member and other key stakeholder participation during the decision-making process for delivering innovative change.

iii. Good Practice Methods: Ensure the organisation has got access to relevant, trialled and tested (good practice) methods on how to analyse its highly influential cultural features, characteristics (perceptions, behaviour, values etc.), qualities, types and classifications (strengths, weaknesses, etc.). This will help determine the most efficient and effective way on how to adapt / align their current / traditional work and social habits to the new or improved way of ‘doing something’.

iv. Work–Life Balance: It is essential to ensure members of an organisation strongly align with a suitable and sustainable ‘work–life balance’ strategy. This means one that satisfies both employee and family needs and expectations (in terms of enhancing their health and wellbeing). This can be achieved through; for example, the supply of fresh fruit in the workplace, undertaking regular health checks, by applying greater emphasis on physical exercise and restricted alcohol. Other approaches include facilitating more social gatherings such as hosting regular family fun days, promoting adventure and team-building activities etc.

v. Sub-Cultures: Ensure the organisation has got access to relevant, trialled and tested (good practice) methods on how to best analyse the inherent, varying and often disparate sub-cultures of an organisation.



- 233 -



vi. Change Methods, Models and Frameworks: Ensure the organisation has got access to relevant (good practice) cultural alignment and change models, methods and frameworks. This will help determine the most efficient way to align current traditional work and social habits of employees and team members with those expected from innovative change

5. EFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP

"Have you (as decision-makers) effectively accessed; recommended; and / or employed the most relevant, trialled and tested models, methods, actions, and frameworks associated

to leading and championing the delivery and application process of the proposed innovative change?"

Leaders and champions are identified as key components when delivering innovative change. Successful leaders ‘get things done’ by effectively delegating tasks to others and by promoting a positive and cooperative environment. This leadership approach is to be achieved and maintained by taking into account the following leadership factors when identifying / engaging leaders, decision makers or champions along the way:

i. Leader vs. Manager: Note that not all leaders are managers, nor are managers all leaders

ii. Human Intervention: Ensure that their 'human intervention' capabilities and experiences include:

o enhanced levels of communication skill sets — both personal and professional;

o the ability to facilitate a positive environment of mutual assurance towards success; and

o the ability to set achievable goals, objectives and milestones by being able to recognise and build on any personal (employee) and other (non-human) resource strengths; and by accepting, overcoming or positively influencing any limitations.

iii. New vs. Old Leaders and Champions: Consider the introduction of new or external leaders / decision makers to champion organisation through the delivery and application of innovative change. This decision is to be based on their ability to, for example:

o apply innovative / enhanced, value-adding, leadership skill sets, ideas, processes, approaches etc.; or

o promote a clearer (unbiased / realistic / transparent) vision, goal, objective etc.

iv. Trust and Collaboration: Ensure leaders, decision makers and champions encourage employees and other key stakeholders to continuously promote a sustainable culture / philosophy of trust and collaboration (pre-, during and beyond) the delivery and application process.

v. Leadership Traps: Ensure leaders, decision makers and champions have a good understanding of past leadership ‘traps', hints (do’s, don’ts etc.), case studies, good-practice guidelines (from both construction and other industry sectors)

vi. Methods, Models and Frameworks: To help reduce the chance of not reaching the ‘finishing line’ in delivering innovative change within current or future work environments, organisations are to ensure that the decision-making team and its champions have ready access to, and wilfully incorporate, relevant, tried and tested (good practice) leadership models, methods, action lists and frameworks.



- 234 -



vii. Regular Reviews: Ensure regular and continuous progress reviews are undertaken by leaders, decision makers and champions pre-, during and beyond the delivery and application of innovative change

6. ENHANCED TRAINING AND EDUCATION

"Have you (as decision makers) effectively evaluated, recommended, and / or ensured the facilitation of the most suitable training and education environments and incentives for the organisation; more specifically, ones

that are attuned to promoting employees and team members to willingly absorb and readily apply

their newly attained knowledge and experiences in best using innovative change within their current or future

work environment?"

To meet an organisation’s learning, training and development requirements, the need for cross-disciplinary education was identified, and that construction industry organisations should re-think the way their trainers and educators are currently delivering required skill sets. This renewed level of awareness can be achieved by considering the following training and education factors:

i. Learning Incentives: Offer and promote effective reward and learning incentive packages that encourage employees and team members to continue developing their skill sets; to increase their productivity levels; and voluntarily create, share and apply their newly attained knowledge and experiences amongst other co-workers, key stakeholders, and work environments.

ii. Delivery: Ensure trainers and educators have access and the required skill sets to employ the latest training and education delivery tools, models, frameworks, ‘disciplines’ etc., such as: synchronised (live / direct) or instructor-led training programs that use video, audio and graphical presentations / applications that can be accessed by a geographically dispersed consortium of organisations, employees and key stakeholders etc.

iii. Benefits: Recognise and promote the key benefits (what’s in it for me?) that can be gained through enhanced and continued training and education.

iv. Good Investment: Promote investing in the training and education of employees is a logical, value-adding endeavour towards achieving long-term business success and competitiveness

v. Enhanced efficiency: Note that improved long-term efficiencies and enhanced overall productivity levels of employees through the successful delivery and application of innovative change, can be achieved by: unlocking, developing and continuously stimulating an individual’s creativity, knowledge and skill sets; and by providing employees and other key stakeholders with suitable and professional learning and training environments / platforms. These enable the newly acquired knowledge and skill sets to be effectively disseminated, communicated and applied within and between current and future geographically dispersed work environments.

vi. Productivity vs. Untrained or Uneducated: To help ensure members of an organisation perform to their full and expected potential, organisations are to ensure no employee or key stakeholders are to be left uninformed, uneducated or untrained on how to effectively apply / benefit from innovative change.



- 235 -



vii. Broader Industry Support: Ensure trainers and educators take an active role in, and get more involved with industry good-practice undertakings / ‘real world’ learning experiences by, for example: encouraging the increased involvement and contribution of professional learned bodies from relevant industry and business sectors to share their experiences; and by having ready access to relevant (successful as well as failed) case study examples etc.

viii. Ability: Ensure trainers and educators have the ability to offer the necessary industry standard and level of education, and that the employees and project team members have the basic ability, aptitude and proficiency (logical thinking) to learn and then apply the newly acquired skill sets.

7. SUITABLE KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT (KM) AND SHARING PLATFORMS

"Does the organisation have an effective knowledge creation,

management and sharing system or platform? This is one that provides a geographically dispersed consortium

of construction industry organisations, employees and key

stakeholders ready access to a user-friendly environment (e.g. internet- or

intranet-based) that allows the creation, storage and sharing of

innovative change-related knowledge?" If so … “Are employees able to sufficiently adapt their current undertakings and capabilities of both implicit (unspoken, inherent, implied and in the mind of employees and team members) as well as explicit

(clear, open, unambiguous and documented) formats – and

effectively combine, house, share and manage these with the data,

information and knowledge of innovative change?”… and … “Will the organisation’s KM efforts be a

‘leading or bleeding’ experience, that is, will the above efforts be to the

detriment, closely match, or effectively reduce current KM efforts,

inefficiencies etc?”

Organisations are to have ready and unrestricted access to an appropriate KM platform - one that is effective in facilitating the creation, storage, and sharing of innovative change knowledge pre-, during and beyond its delivery and application.

In addition to the above, organisations are to consider the following KM factors throughout this component of the CDF:

i. Change Traditional Data Storage Methods: Undertake all efforts in converting traditional (tacit and explicit) formats of value-adding data, information and knowledge, and house them in a shared and user friendly (electronic, inter / intranet etc.) workspace for future access, reference, use etc. This should place them within an environment that can be accessed by a geographically dispersed consortium of construction industry organisations, employees and key stakeholders.

ii. Knowledge Sharing vs. Storing Effort: Ensure any renewed or additional KM efforts (pertaining to the creating, storing and sharing of data, information and knowledge) of innovative change, closely matches, or (preferably) enhances the efficiency of current KM efforts.

iii. Having a Leading Edge: Ensure all KM efforts are ‘leading edge’ and value-adding as no organisation can afford to commit their valuable resources or efforts, only to end up on the ‘bleeding edge’ of KM progression (non value-adding, inefficient etc.)

8. DETERMINE THE IMPACT ON END CLIENT AND OTHER KEY STAKEHOLDERS

“Have you (as decision makers) taken into account all possible effects

the delivery of the proposed innovative change may have on any

social, technical, infrastructure, process and business re-engineering

requirements of the end client and other key stakeholders?”

Construction industry organisations are (generally) faced with many new challenges with the need to become / stay competitive, efficient and highly productive in order to ‘survive’ in today’s (and tomorrow’s) aggressively cutthroat and constantly evolving global economy. There also seems to be an increase in organisations having to provide more cost-effective solutions by satisfying the raised quality expectations of more informed and knowledgeable clients across the globe. To meet these improved and much anticipated delivery standards of tomorrow’s clients (in relation to the three cornerstones of cost, time and quality), construction industry leaders need to become more apparent by being more client-orientated and providing a better client service.



- 236 -



Hence, when organisations decide on whether or not to deliver innovative change into an existing or future work environment, they need to ensure that the ‘new or improved way of doing something’ still meets (if not surpasses) the elevated needs and expectations of the client and other key stakeholders. The following client-related factors are therefore to be considered throughout this component of the CDF:

i. Going the Extra Mile: Develop strong relationships with clients and other key stakeholders by communicating and interacting beyond the mere ‘formal’ business, re-engineering, supply and physical infrastructure ‘boundaries’ of delivering and applying innovative change.

ii. Develop Synergy: Develop the organisation’s innovative change business plan and delivery strategy by including client and other key stakeholder considerations:

o with the aim of achieving ‘win/win+’ (2 + 2 = 5) outcomes such as having ‘incentive shares’ in profits, cost savings etc.;

o taking into account all possible effects and influencing factors the delivery of innovative change may have on the end client and other key stakeholders. This may be achieved by including them in, for example, a return on investment study, an impact study, a risk vs. opportunity assessment plan etc.

9. CONSIDER WHOLE OF BUSINESS LIFECYCLE COST

"Have you (as decision makers) fully considered the life-cycle costs of the

proposed innovative change, and compared these against the

organisation’s total business or project costs?”

Determining both short- and long-term business and life-cycle costs for delivering innovative change in organisations are essential undertakings that cannot be overlooked, mismanaged or underestimated. This is because they can directly, indirectly, positively and negatively influence the downstream costs and investment opportunities for all key stakeholders.

Unless these costs are fully understood, properly managed, accurately undertaken and kept under stringent control; change leaders are likely to lose support from pivotal / senior decision makers within the organisation and external stakeholders.

Therefore, when evaluating the whole of business life-cycle cost of innovative change, organisations are to adhere to the following cost-related factors throughout this component of the CDF for delivering innovative change:

i. Capital vs. Operational Costs: Determine the total upfront capital and investment costs of the proposed innovative change and then compare these against the later and ongoing operation costs by, for example, undertaking a cost vs. return on investment analysis.

ii. Work Together: Where possible, undertake the above by working closely with an organisation’s (internal / external) team leaders, managers, financial planners, industry forecasters, clients, developers and other key stakeholders / decision makers.


- 237 -

7.1. Summary: Chapter Seven

Although nine dynamics were identified, tested and validated as being highly

relevant and key components of the proposed CDF for delivering innovative

change within construction industry organisations, the need to further develop,

trial and test an all-encompassing ‘Innovative Change Decision-making

Framework’ (ICDF) is still apparent. This observation is discussed at greater

length in Chapter Eight.

Chapter Nine – Discussion, Conclusions and Proposed Future Research

- 238 -

8. CHAPTER EIGHT: DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND PROPOSED FUTURE RESEARCH

8.1. Discussion and Conclusions

The primary research aim was to identify and test the relevancy of a range of

measurable dynamics in terms of being key components of a CDF for delivering

innovative change within organisations. This was achieved by satisfying the

research objectives, testing the research hypothesis, answering the research

question and by using a comprehensive and effective data collection and

verification process – a Delphi Study.

The Background and the second (more extensive) Literature Review confirmed a

lag in commitment within Australian and international construction industry

organisations towards identifying, developing and / or testing improved decision-

making methods, processes, models and frameworks for the successful delivery

and application of innovative change. It further confirmed that the accuracy,

effectiveness and efficiency of any decision-making process will be hindered if

the decisions are based on superficial / unsubstantiated / biased reasoning,

factors, information or traditions (because of ‘the way we have always done

things’).

Research also found insufficient evidence of a comprehensive decision-making

framework that measured (rated) the delivery of innovative change within

construction industry organisations.


- 239 -

As a result, five years of research identified, tested and confirmed nine

measurable dynamics – Change, Innovation, Implementation, Culture,

Leadership, Training and Education, Knowledge-sharing and Management,

Impact on End Client and Other Key Stakeholders; and Whole of Business Life-

cycle Cost – as being highly relevant and key components of a CDF for delivering


8.2. Proposed Future Research

Findings suggest that the construction industry (in general) is not as ‘advanced’

compared to other industries when it comes to investing in the development and

delivery of innovative change within organisations. Today’s construction industry

businesses and key stakeholder worlds are inevitably exposed to various levels

of indecision, confusion, lack of commitment and misconceptions on how best to

measure and manage the ever-present risks and opportunities associated with

the delivery of innovative change.

8.2.1. Nine Research Proposals

While Chapter Six provides a detailed analysis of the data collated during the two

Delphi Survey Questionnaire rounds, and findings confirm nine dynamics are

highly relevant and key components of a CDF, nine supplementary research

undertakings are proposed – summarised in Table 8-1.


- 240 -

Table 8-1: Nine Research Proposals – Based on Findings

NINE RESEARCH PROPOSALS PROJECTED OUTCOMES

1. As all factors and sub-factors underpinning the

nine dynamics within the CDF are assumed to

have equal weight (Chapter Three), further

investigation into these is proposed:

• Firstly, by predetermining the weight of all

factors and sub-factors within each dynamic.

• Secondly, by trialling and testing what impact

these weightings have on the relevance rate

and rank of the nine dynamics.

• By having the relevance of each of the nine

dynamics (including their underlying factors, and

sub-factors) ‘pre-weighted’ within the proposed

ICDF – will help:

o make more informed decisions in relation to

the prioritisation of various tasks; resources;

etc. when delivering innovative change in

organisations.

2. Although all nine dynamics were confirmed by

the panel of experts as being key components of

a CDF, further investigation and analysis is

proposed to identify and evaluate the relevancy

of any additional underlying factors and sub-

factors for each of nine dynamics besides those

identified by this research, and from a number of

different and value-adding perspectives.

• Findings and outcomes will assist in:

o more accurately assessing and provide a

better understanding of an organisation’s

abilities, limitations, etc. in relation to the nine

dynamics;

o further validating the relevancy of including

these dynamics in the proposed ICDF for

delivering innovative change within an

organisation.

3. While the dynamics of ‘Whole of Business Life-

cycle Cost’; ‘Innovation’; and ‘Knowledge sharing

and Management’ were identified and confirmed

by the panel of experts as being key components

of a CDF, further investigation and analysis is

proposed to validate the relevancy of including

these three dynamics in the proposed ICDF.

• Findings and outcomes will:

o enhance the assessment, understanding and

management of associated business lifecycle

costs; financial risks; investment

opportunities; knowledge management (KM)

and sharing requirements, abilities and

limitations etc.

4. The ‘Impact on End-client Business’ was

confirmed by the panel of experts as being a key

component of a CDF, yet, further investigation

and analysis is proposed to determine the root

cause(s) for the low percentage rating (40%)

allocated to the ‘Develop and Maintain Synergy’

factor.


o better meet end-client needs, expectations

etc.;

o more accurately measure / assess the

potential impact and overall effects the

delivery of innovative change may have on

end-client businesses;

o further validate the relevancy of ‘Impact on

End-client Business’ being a key component

in the proposed ICDF for delivering innovative




- 241 -


5. Although the dynamic of ‘Training and Education’

was confirmed by the panel of experts as being a

key component of a CDF, further investigation

and analysis is proposed on the four additional

factors and underlying sub-factors identified by

the panel of industry experts — ‘Broader industry

support’, ‘Ability’, ‘Understanding’ and ‘Common

sense’.

• Findings and outcomes from this proposed

research will help:

o promote enhanced efforts of involvement /

input from professional / industry learned

bodies etc.;

o ensure trainers / educators have ready

access to successful (as well as failed)

‘delivery of innovative change’ case study

examples for enhanced future learning;

o ensure trainers / educators have the ability

(knowledge, skill sets etc.) to offer the

necessary industry standard and level of

education;

o better assess employees (and other key

stakeholders) in their abilities / limitations to

learn and apply the new innovative change

skill sets;

o further validate the relevancy of ‘Training and

Education’ being a key component in the

proposed ICDF.

6. While the dynamic of ‘Change’ was confirmed by

the panel of experts as being a key component

of a CDF’, further investigation and analysis into

this dynamic is proposed to determine the root

cause(s) for the low ratings (40%) of the two sub-

factors ‘Globalisation of the Economy’ and

‘Effects of Increased Competition’


o More accurately measure and better

understand what impact globalisation,

economic trends and enhanced

competitiveness (or lack of) has within the

proposed ICDF.

7. The dynamic of ‘Leadership’ was confirmed by

the panel of experts as being a key component

of a CDF, yet further investigation and analysis is

proposed:

• to determine the root cause(s) as to why

certain industry experts allocated a low

percentage rate of 40% relevancy to the three

sub-factors that underpin the ‘New vs. Old

Leaders and Champions’ factor —

‘Leadership Skill Sets’; ‘Recipes for Success’;

and ‘Clearer (Unbiased / Realistic) Vision /

Goals / Objectives’.

• Findings and outcomes will further validate the:

o ‘Leadership’ dynamic (in general) as being a

key component of the proposed ICDF;

o relevancy of introducing new / external

(versus existing / internal) leaders to

champion employees and other key

stakeholders through the delivery and

application process.



- 242 -


8. Although the dynamic of ‘Culture’ was confirmed

by the panel of experts as being a key

component of CDF, further investigation and

analysis is proposed:

• to determine the root cause(s) as to why

certain industry experts allocated a low

percentage rate of 40% relevancy to sub-

factors underpinning the following factors:

‘Success Factors’, ‘Work–Life Balance’, ‘Sub-

cultures’ and ‘Methods, Models and

Frameworks’.


o more accurately measure and better

understand what impact and overall effects

the deeply embedded culture and sub-culture

‘influences’ (types, personalities,

characteristics, classifications etc.) of an

organisation may (or may not) have on the

proposed ICDF.

9. While the dynamic of ‘Implementation’ was

confirmed by the panel of experts as being a key

component of a CDF, further investigation and

analysis is proposed to determine the root

cause(s) as to why certain industry experts

allocated a low percentage rate of 40%

relevancy to a sub-factor underpinning the

following factor: ‘Strategies, Methods, Models

and Frameworks’.


o more accurately measure and better

understand what impact the use (or the lack

of) the most appropriate implementation

strategies, methods, models and frameworks

has on the proposed ICDF for delivering

innovative change within an organisation.

8.2.2. Proposed ‘Innovative Change Delivery Process’ (ICDP)

Research confirmed nine dynamics formed the foundation of a CDF and further

verified all nine dynamics were underpinned by varying degrees of challenges

and opportunities (factors) that construction industry organisations need to

recognise; measure; respond to; and effectively manage to ensure the successful

delivery of innovative change.

Although the above satisfied the research aims and objectives, the need to

develop and test an all-encompassing ICDP is proposed – that is, to (preferably)

be in an electronic format (inter/intranet-based etc.) to help ensure a

geographically dispersed consortium of construction (and other) industry sector

leaders, organisations, clients and other key stakeholders gain unrestricted and

secure access to, for example:

• supplementary support and KM mechanisms;


- 243 -

• good-practice guidelines;

• relevant (successful as well as unsuccessful) delivery of innovative change

case study examples;

• tried and tested processes, frameworks, models, and recommendations;

• ‘stop-and-check’ innovative change decision-making indicators;

• delivery ‘do’s and don’ts’; as well as

• internationally recognised industry experts, innovative change specialists and

up-to-date network platforms.

To help realise the above expectations, the proposed ICDP will comprise three

co-dependent sub-components, being:

• A comprehensive ‘Innovative Change Decision-making Framework’ (ICDF) —

‘what is our organisation’s current status?’;

• An ‘Innovative Change Delivery Analysis’ (ICDA) program — ‘are we ready for

innovative change?’; and finally

• An ‘Innovative Change Delivery Guide’ (ICDG) — ‘how, when, why, and by

whom?’

The above three sub-components of the ICDP are discussed separately in the

following dedicated sections.

8.2.3. Proposed ‘Innovative Change Decision-making Framework’ (ICDF)

Although all nine dynamics (as a whole) were confirmed as key components of a

CDF for delivering innovative change within an organisation, further research and

analysis of these dynamics is proposed by developing a more comprehensive

decision-making framework that is to be appropriately tried and tested on a larger

population of Australian and internationally-based case study organisations (from

both construction and other industry sectors) prior to application.


- 244 -

As a result, underpinning the proposed ICDP are the R&D efforts of an enhanced

ICDF that is adaptable to all levels and sectors of the construction industry –

thereby:

• ensuring maximum engagement / participation by all decision-makers (leaders,

managers, employees, clients and other key stakeholders); and

• encouraging respondents to voluntarily contribute any suggestions,

recommendations and concerns they may have towards a proposed new or

improved way of ‘doing something’ (based on their knowledge, experience

etc.) and how this innovative change initiative may (positively or negatively)

effect their current and future work environments.

Finally, to help ensure the robustness of the proposed ICDF is of the highest

standard possible, researchers are to:

• make a concerted effort to ensure all findings from the nine research proposals

outlined in Section 8.2.1 are incorporated into the development process; and

• certify that all proposed innovative change delivery factors (questions,

statements, measures, enquiries etc.) for each of the nine dynamics presented

in the draft example (Appendix K:) are rigorously researched, further

examined, developed and meticulously tested prior to its application.

An initial (untested and untried) draft example of the proposed ICDF (including its

revised / modified contents) is presented in Appendix K:.

8.2.4. Proposed ‘Innovative Change Delivery Analysis’ (ICDA)

All outcomes, findings, suggestions, ratings etc. from completing the above ICDF

are then collated through the use of an ICDA program. This forms the second key

component of the proposed ICDP. The ICDA is expected to:

• automatically summarise the ICDF findings (through the use of background

software, database programs, platforms etc.) thereby providing sufficient

qualitative and quantitative data, information and knowledge pertaining to each

of the nine (and any additional) dynamics and relevant factors; and


- 245 -

• clearly highlight any strengths, weaknesses, gaps, opportunities and areas for

improvement that an organisation needs to consider and address when

delivering innovative change into an existing or future work environment.

An initial (untested and untried) draft example of the proposed ICDA is presented

in Appendix L:. Here the combined results to the nine dynamics are graphically

portrayed as easy-to-understand and user-friendly graphs, tables etc., clearly

illustrating an organisation’s current status in terms of its level of ‘readiness’ in

successfully delivering innovative change. In this draft example, the strengths

and enhanced capabilities of the organisation to provide ready access to user-

friendly workspaces and knowledge creating, storing and sharing environments

etc., is clearly highlighted as ‘A’. Whilst ‘B’ emphasises concern towards the lack

or failure of the organisation being able to provide the most suitable training and

education environments and / or incentives for their employees to learn how to

effectively apply innovative change within their current or future work

environments.

Lastly, findings suggest the final outcomes of the ICDA are to be ‘transparent’,

where the results are made available to everyone who may be affected by the

delivery of innovative change (upstream, downstream, internal and external).

This will ensure enhanced levels of trust, commitment and willingness from

managers, employees, clients and other key stakeholders; and promote a sense

of ‘ownership’ towards satisfying all relevant dynamics, thereby ensuring the

successful and sustainable delivery of innovative change within an organisation.

8.2.5. Proposed ‘Innovative Change Delivery Guide’ (ICDG)

Throughout the above decision-making and analysis process, all decision-makers

(managers, employees, clients and other key stakeholders) should have

unrestricted access to the third and final component of the ICDP — that of the

ICDG for which an initial (untested and untried) draft example is provided in

Appendix M:. The proposed ICDG is to be tried and tested on a larger population

of Australian and internationally-based case study organisations (from both


- 246 -

construction and other industry sectors) prior to its application. The final version

of the ICDG is to be housed in an interactive (inter / intranet-based) data /

information / knowledge sharing platform that is easily accessible, user friendly

and regularly updated by construction (and other) industry experts and specialists

who are recognised by their peers as having extended experience,

understanding and,/,or knowledge in the process of delivering innovative change.

Finally, the ICDP is to provide industry leaders, clients, employees, team

members and other key stakeholders across the globe; access to the latest good-

practice guidelines, methods, tips, suggestions, case studies and lessons learnt -

directing them towards achieving the successful delivery and sustainable

application of innovative change within their organisation.

8.3. Summary: Chapter Eight

Nine dynamics are identified as essential components of the decision-making

process for assessing and managing the delivery of innovative change within a

geographically dispersed consortium of building and construction industry

organisations, employees, clients and other key stakeholders.

A further nine supplementary research initiatives are identified, and the

development and testing of an all-encompassing ‘Innovative Change Delivery

Process’ (ICDP) is proposed - underpinned by a transparent ‘Innovative Change

Decision-making Framework’ (ICDF), an ‘Innovative Change Delivery Analysis’

(ICDA) program, and an ‘Innovative Change Delivery Guide’ (ICDG) — all of

which are predicted to promote enhanced levels of enthusiasm and confidence

towards the successful delivery of innovative change. Foreseen advantages

include:

• gaining a greater understanding of how to more accurately assess and better

manage an organisation’s level of ‘readiness’ towards delivering innovative

change by way of nine (or more) dynamics;

• providing good-practice guidance on how best to achieve the sustainable

delivery of innovative change within an organisation;


- 247 -

• facilitating increased levels of collaboration and sharing of knowledge between

a geographically dispersed consortium of organisations;

• ensuring enhanced levels of trust and ‘willingness to commit’ from managers,

employees, clients and other key stakeholders towards ensuring a successful

and sustainable delivery.

Unless building and construction industry organisations fully embrace similar

initiatives as those proposed by this research, then there may be a strong

possibility that organisations will continue finding it challenging to maximise their

potential level of competitiveness and efficiency to fully realise both short- and

long-term benefits; or be able to identify value-adding business opportunities the

delivery of innovative change can offer.

If construction industry leaders continue to deliver innovative change

within their organisations without measuring the strengths and

weaknesses of key decision-making dynamics (and respond to these

accordingly), there is a strong possibility that the success and

sustainability of that delivery may be threatened or even fail.

References

- 248 -

REFERENCES

Adept Scientific (2009) GenStat: Complex Statistical Analyses Made Easy.

Adeptise. http://www.adeptscience.co.uk/products/dataanal/genstat/

ALLPM (2006) Successful Motivational Techniques for Virtual Teams ALLPM

ALLPM Project Management (http://allpm.com/) 1-3.

http://allpm.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid

=1135&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

AllWords.com (2008) Interdependent Definition. http://www.allwords.com/word-

interdependent.html

Amaratunga, D., Baldry, D., Sarshar, M. & Newton, R. (2002) Quantitative and

Qualitative Research in the Built Environment: Application of ’’Mixed’’

Research Approach Environment. Work Study. 51. 1: 17- 31.

Amin, A., Bargach, S. & Donegan, J. (2001) Building a Knowledge Sharing

Culture (White Paper) 50-51.

http://www.slb.com/media/services/resources/oilfieldreview/ors01/spr01/p4

8_65.pdf

Anderson, J. V. (1993) Mind Mapping: A Tool for Creative Thinking. Business

Horizons. 36. 1: 41-46.

Andrews, C.G. & Allen, J.M. (2002) Utilization of Technology-Enhanced Delphi

Techniques. Department of Technology and Cognition - University of

North Texas.

http://voc.ed.psu.edu/projects/publications/books/2002/WEF2002.2.html

Baines, A. (1998) Creating a Culture of Ownership. Work Study. 47. 1.

Bate, P. (1996) Strategies for Cultural Change. Butterworth Heinemann. Oxford.

Bishop, K. (2002) New Roles, Skills and Capabilities for the Knowledge-focused

Organisation. Standards Australia International. Business Excellence

Australia, Sydney vi, 3, 30.

Black, J. S. & Gregersen, H. B. (2002) Leading Strategic Change: Breaking

Through the Brain Barrier. Pearson Education Inc. New Jersey. 20-86.

References

- 249 -

Blayse, A. & Manley, K. (2003) Influences on Construction Innovation: A brief

overview of recent literature. Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) for

Construction Innovation. http://www.construction-

innovation.info/index.php?id=385

Brandon, P. (2006) Should Clients Drive Innovation? Mind, Method, and

Motivation. Clients Driving Innovation: Moving Ideas into Practice.

Australia. 12-14 March.

http://www.2006conference.crcci.info/docs/CDProceedings/Proceedings/P

185_Brandon.pdf

BusinessDictionary.com (2009) Differential Analysis Definition. Business

Dictionary. http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/differential-

analysis.html

Buzan, T., Israel, R. & Dottino, T. (2009) Tony Buzan's Mind Mapping - The

Ultimate Thinking Tool. Squidoo, LLC (and Respective Copyright Owners)

http://www.squidoo.com/Tony-Buzan-s-Mind-Mapping-Thle-Ultimate-

Thinking-Tool and http://www.imindmap.com/articles/TB_MM_UTT.aspx

Cabrera, A., Cabrera, E.F. & Barajas, S. (2001) The Key Role of Organisational

Culture in a Multi-System View of Technology-Driven Change.

International Journal of Information Management. 21. 3.

Cann, A. (2009) MicrobiologyBytes: Maths & Computers for Biologists:

Descriptive Statistics. Microbiologybytes.

http://www.microbiologybytes.com/maths/1011-18.html

Carrillo, P.M. & Anumba, C.J. (2002) Knowledge Management in the AEC

Sector: An Exploration of the Mergers and Acquisitions Context.

Knowledge and Process Management. 9/3. Jul/Sep: 149-61.

http://itc.scix.net/cgi-bin/works/Show?w78-2000-155

Carucci, R. A. & Pasmore, W. A. (2002) Relationships that Enable Enterprise

Change. Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer Inc. San Fransisco.

Cleveland Jr., A.B. (1999) Knowledge Management: Why it's Not an Information

Technology Issue? Journal of Management in Engineering. November /

December.

Cline, A. (2000) White Paper: Prioritization Process Using Delphi Technique.

Carolla Development: http://www.carolla.com/wp-delph.htm

References

- 250 -

Cooper, C.L. (1999) Can We Live with the Changing Nature of Work? Journal of

Managerial Psychology. 14. 7/8.

CRISP (2000a) The Contribution that Technological Change could make to

meeting the Objectives of Rethinking Construction: The Product (99/17).

January. www.crisp-uk.org.uk www.arup.com

CRISP (2000b) Report on a Workshop: Technological Change and Rethinking

Construction. June. www.crisp-uk.org.uk

Cross, R. & Baird, L. (2000) Technology is Not Enough: Improving Performance

by Building Organisational Memory (US). Sloan Management Review.

Spring. 41. 3:

Davidson, P. (2009) Management: Core Concepts and Applications Milton, Qld:

John Wiley & Sons. xxi, 594

Davidson, P. (2010) Quotation on Change. Queensland University of

Technology, Brisbane.

Davies, J., Studer, R., Sure, Y. & Warren, P.W. (2005) Next Generation

Knowledge Management. BT Technology Journal. 23. 3: 175.

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:mIAjTYQxK_EJ:www.aifb.uni-

karlsruhe.de/WBS/ysu/publications/2005_sekt_btjournal.pdf+next+generat

ion+knowledge+management&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=au and

http://www.aifb.uni-

karlsruhe.de/WBS/ysu/publications/2005_sekt_btjournal.pdf

Dictionary.com (2008a) Client. Definitions from Webster's

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/client

Dictionary.com (2008b) Dynamic. Definitions from Webster's

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dynamic

Dictionary.com (2008c) Expert. Definitions from Webster's

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/expert

Dictionary.com (2008d) Factor. Definitions from Webster's

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/factor

Dictionary.com (2008e) Implementation. Definitions from Webster's

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Implementation

Dictionary.com (2008f) Interdependent. Definitions from Webster's

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/interdependent

References

- 251 -

Dictionary.com (2008g) Key. Definitions from Webster's

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/key

Dictionary.com (2008h) Life-cycle. Definitions from Webster's

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/life%20cycle

Dictionary.com (2008i) Methodology. Definitions from Webster's

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/method

Dictionary.com (2008j) Organisation. Definitions from Webster's

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/organisation

Dictionary.com (2008k) Research. Definitions from Webster's

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/research

Dictionary.com (2008l) Stakeholder. Definitions from Webster's

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stakeholder

Dictionary.com (2008m) Sustainable. Definitions from Webster's

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sustainable

Dictionary.com (2008n) Team. Definitions from Webster's

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/team

Dictionary.com (2009) Change. Definitions from Webster's

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/change

Duarte, D. L. & Snyder, N. T. (2001) Mastering Virtual Teams: Strategies, Tools,

and Techniques that Succeed. Jossey-Bass Inc. San Fransisco. 2nd

Edition.

Egbu, C. (2004) Managing Knowledge and Intellectual Capital for Improved

Organizational Innovations in the Construction Industry Engineering,

Construction, and Architectural Management. 11. 5: 301-13.

Evrekli, E., Balim, A. & İnel, D. (2009) Mind Mapping Applications in Special

Teaching Methods Courses for Science Teacher Candidates and Teacher

Candidates’ Opinions Concerning the Applications Procedia. Social and

Behavioral Sciences. 1. 1: 2274-79.

Fellows, R. & Liu, A. (2003) Research Methods for Construction (Second

Edition). Blackwell Science. Great Britain. 28-32, 44, 91-97.

Fielding, M. & Schreier, M. (2001) Introduction: On the Compatibility Between

Qualitative and Quantitative Research Methods. Forum: Qualitative Social

Research. 2. 1. www.qualitative-research.net

References

- 252 -

Flanagan, R. (1998) Creating Competitive Advantage In Construction With

Technology. Second International Conference on Construction Project

Management, Critical Issues and Challenges Into The Next Millennium

(February 19-20). Raffles City Convention Centre, Singapore.

Foresight (2000) Constructing the Future: Making the Future Work For You.

www.foresight.gov.au

Fujitsu Centre (1998) Information Technology in the Building and Construction

Industry: Current Status and Future Directions. August.

Gann, D. (1997) Technology and Industrial Performance in Construction.

September.

Gilley, J. W. & Maycunich, A. (2000) Beyond the Learning Organization. Perseus

Books. New York.

Grenier, R. & Metes, G. (1995) Going Virtual: Moving Your Organisation into the

21st Century. Prentice Hall Inc.: xv, 320.

Grisham, T. & Walker, D.H.T. (2006) Nurturing a Knowledge Environment for

International Construction Organizations Through Communities of

Practice. Construction Innovation. 6. 217-31.

http://www.thomasgrisham.com/papers/Nurturing%20Knowledge.Construc

tion%20Innovation.pdf

Gupta, A. & Thomas, G. (2001) Organisational Learning in a High-Tech

Environment: From Theory to Practice. Industrial Management & Data

Systems. 101. 9.

Hari, S., Egbu, C. & Kumar, B. (2005) A Knowledge Capture Awareness Tool: An

Empirical Study on Small and Medium Enterprises in the Construction

Industry Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management. 12. 6:

533-43. http://www.emeraldinsight.com

Hasan, H. & Handzic, M. (2003) Australian Studies in Knowledge Management.

University of Wollongong Press. Wollongong, N.S.W.: i-x, 48, 343, 568.

Hee, H. (1998) Information Technology & The Deployment of CAD Systems: An

Enabler Or Disabler of Construction Management? A Critical Appraisal of

Its Impact On Design & Build Projects In Singapore. Second International

Conference on Construction Project Management, Critical Issues and

Challenges Into The Next Millennium (19-20 February). Raffles City

Convention Centre, Singapore.

References

- 253 -

Hensey, M. (2001) Collective Excellence: Building Effective Teams. American

Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Press. Virginia. 2nd Edition. 49

Hiley, M. (2001) Just the Job. Industrial and Commercial Training. 33. 6.

Hofstede, G. (2009) Hofstede's Five Cultural Dimensions. Geert Hofstede - ITIM.

http://www.geert-hofstede.com/

Hughes, T., Williams, T. & Ryall, P. (2000) It is Not What You Achieve, it is the

Way you Achieve It. Total Quality Management. 11. 3.

Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT) (c1996) The Delphi Method.

http://www.iit.edu/~it/delphi.html and http://www.iit.edu/~it/

Illumine Training (2008) How To Make a Mind Map®. Illumine Training.

www.illumine.co.uk/ and www.mind-mapping.co.uk/make-mind-map.htm

Indiana University (2008) Survey Definition.

http://www.indiana.edu/~iuaudit/glossary.html

Jennex, M.E. (2005) Case Studies in Knowledge Management. Idea Group

Publishers. Hershey PA viii-xii, 372.

Kaarst-Brown, M.L. & Robey, D. (1999) More Myth, Magic and Metaphor:

Cultural Insights into the Management of Information Technology in

Organizations. Information Technology & People. 12. 2.

Kajewski, S.L. & Weippert, A. (2000) Online Remote Construction Management:

Literature Review. Faculty of Built Environment and Engineering,

Queensland University of Technology. October.

Kajewski, S.L. & Weippert, A. (2003) A Brief Synopsis in the Use of Information

and Communication Technology and Internet-based Construction Project

Management in the Construction Industry. Cooperative Research Centre

for Construction Innovation (Report 2001-008-C-01).

http://www.construction-innovation.info/

Kajewski, S.L., Weippert, A. & Crawford, J.R. (2003a) Electronic Tendering: An

Industry Perspective. Cooperative Research Centre for Construction

Innovation (Report 2001-008-C-07). http://www.construction-

innovation.info/

Kajewski, S.L., Weippert, A. & Tilley, P.A. (2002) Online Remote Construction

Management: Consolidated Report. Faculty of Built Environment and

Engineering, Queensland University of Technology. October.

References

- 254 -

Kajewski, S.L., Weippert, A., Tilley, P.A. & Remmers, T. (2003b) Hand-Held

Technology Review. Cooperative Research Centre for Construction

Innovation (Report 2001-008-C). http://www.construction-innovation.info/

Kelle, U. (2001) Sociological Explanations Between Micro and Macro and the

Integration of Qualitative and Quantitative Methods. Forum: Qualitative

Social Research. 2. 1. www.qualitative-research.net

Kilby, T. (2001) The Direction of Web-Based Training: a Practitioner's View. The

learning Organisation. 8. 5.

Kokotovich, V. (2008) Problem Analysis and Thinking Tools: An Empirical Study

of Non-hierarchical Mind Mapping. Design Studies. 29. 1: 49-69.

Kotter, J. (2001) Leading Change. http://www.mgmtquotes.com/search/

Lane, D. M. (2009) HyperStat Online Statistics Textbook. HyperStat

http://davidmlane.com/hyperstat/A16252.html

Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (1994) The Evaluation of Training: An Organizational

Culture Approach. Journal of European Industrial Training. 18. 8.

Lingard, Helen. & Rowlinson, Stephen M. (Unknown) Sample Size in Factor

Analysis: Why Size Matters

(http://rec.hku.hk/steve/msc/factoranalysisnoteforstudentresourcepage.pdf

). Hong Kong Polytechnic University:

Linowes J.G. (1999) Invest in the Best Communications. Journal of Management

in Engineering. November/December.

Linstone, H.A. (1999) Book Review by Coates J.: Decision Making for

Technology Executives. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data.

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:rJ7Yr8tc7-

IJ:josephcoates.com/pdf_files/235_Review.pdf+Decision+Making+for+Tec

hnology+Executives&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=au

Linstone, H.A. & Murray, T. (1975) The Delphi Method: Techniques and

Applications Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

http://is.njit.edu/pubs/delphibook/ch1.html,

http://is.njit.edu/pubs/delphibook/ch7a.pdf and

http://is.njit.edu/pubs/delphibook/#toc

Linstone, H.A. & Murray, T. (2002) The Delphi Method: Techniques and

Applications New Jersey's Science and Technology University (NJIT)

Department of Information Systems. http://is.njit.edu/pubs/delphibook/#toc

References

- 255 -

Lopez, S.P., Peon, J.M.M. & Ordas, C.J.V. (2004) Managing Knowledge: The

Link Between Culture and Organizational Learning. Journal of Knowledge

Management. 8. 6: 93-101. www.emeraldinsight.com

Love, P.E.D. (1996) Enablers of Process Re-engineering. International

Construction Information Technology Conference - Bridging The Gap

(April 18-19). Sydney.

Manley, K. (2006) Innovate Now: Improving Performance in the Building and

Construction Industry. 3-6.

Manley, K., Blayse, A. & McFallan, S. (2005) Demonstrating the Benefits of

Construction Innovation. Creating and Entrepreneurial Economy: The Role

of Enterprise and Innovation International Research Conference (7 - 8

July). University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.

http://www.brite.crcci.info/resources/pdfs/2005_demonstrating_benefits_fin

al_waikato_uninz__manley_blayse_&_mcfallan.pdf

Maslow, A.H. (1943) A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review. 50.

370-96.

Maull, R., Brown, P. & Cliffe, R. (2001) Organisational Culture and Quality

Improvement. International Journal of Operations & Production

Management. 21. 3.

McClelland, D. C. (1975) Power: The Inner Experience. New York: Irvington

McClelland, D. C. & Burnham, D. H. (1976) Power is the Great Motivator.

Harvard Business Review. 54(2): 100-10.

McDermott, R. & O'Dell, C. (2001) Overcoming Cultural Barriers to Sharing

Knowledge. Journal of Knowledge Management. 5. 1: 76-77.

http://proquest.umi.com

McShane, S.P. & Travaglione, G. (2007) Organisational Behaviour: On the

Pacific Rim. McGraw-Hill Australia Pty Ltd. New Jersey. 2nd Ed.

Meudell, K. & Gadd, K. (1994) Culture and Climate in Short Life Organizations:

Sunny Spells or Thunderstorms? International Journal of Contemporary

Hospitality Management. 6. 5.

Michel, H.L. (1998) The Next 25 Years: The Future of the Construction Industry

Communications. Journal of Management in Engineering.

September/October.

References

- 256 -

Millet, R.A. (1999) Failures: How to Avoid Them. Journal of Management in

Engineering. September/October.

Mirriam-Webster's Online Dictionary (2008) Organisation. http://www.merriam-

webster.com/dictionary/organization

Naslund, D. (2002) Logistics Needs Qualitative Research - Especially Action

Research. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics

Management. 32. 5: 321-38.

Newsted, P., Huff, S. & Munro, M. (1998) About Survey Instruments: A Brief

Introduction. Originally Published in MISQ Discovery.

www.ucalgary.ca/~newsted/tutor

Noel, L. (2009) The Future of Computer-aided Innovation. Computers in Industry.

In Press.

Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995) The Knowledge-creating Company: How

Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford

University Press. New York i-xii, 1-7, 284.

O'Donaghue, A. (2001) Motivational Training Hits New Heights. Industrial and

Commercial Training. 7. 5.

OECD (2009) Glossary of Statistical Terms. OECD.

http://stats.oecd.org/glossary/

Orange, G., Burke, A. & Boam, J. (2000) Organisational Learning in the UK

Construction Industry: A Knowledge Management Approach. Leeds

Metropolitan University. http://csrc.lse.ac.uk/asp/aspecis/20000202.pdf

Park, H., Ribière, V. & Schulte, Jr W. D. (2004) Critical Attributes of

Organizational Culture that Promote Knowledge Management Technology

Implementation Success. Journal of Knowledge Management: 106-17.

http://www.emeraldinsight.com

Paulson, B.C. (1995) Computer Applications In Construction. McGraw-Hill Inc.

Singapore.

Peneder, M. (2008) The Problem of Private Under-investment in Innovation: A

Policy Mind Map. Technovation. 28. 8: 518-30.

Pepper, G. L. (1995) Communications in Organizations: A Cultural Approach.

McGraw-Hill Inc.

References

- 257 -

Perry, C. (1998) A Structured Approach for Presenting Theses: Notes for

Students and their Supervisors. Australasian Marketing Journal. 6. 1: 63-

85.

Price Waterhouse Coopers (2002) Innovation in the Australian Building and

Construction Industry – Survey Report.

http://www.acif.com.au/dwn/20104_Proposal_V5%202%20col.pdf

Rai, A. R. (2005) Management Guru on How to Drive Innovation. Business

Standard: http://www.rediff.com/money/2005/jul/06spec.htm

Rethinking Construction (2000) A Commitment to People: "Our Biggest Asset".

www.dti.gov.uk/construction/respect

Revenaugh, D. L. (1994) Business Process Re-Engineering: The Unavoidable

Challenge. Management Decision. 32. 7.

RICS & Salford University (2007) Drinking at the Knowledge Ba: Innovation in

Small Construction Knowledge Intensive Professional Service Firms.

Research Paper Series from The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors

(RICS). 6. 3. www.rics.org

RICS & Salford University (2007) Innovation in Small Construction Knowledge

Intensive Professional Service Firms. Research Paper Series from The

Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS). 6. 14: 9-14. www.rics.org

Robbins, S.P. (1998) Organisational Behaviour: Concepts, Controversies and

Applications. Prentice Hall Inc. New Jersey. Eighth Edition. 138-86, 347,

595-98, 601-46.

Roberts, D. (2009) Normal Distribution Standard Deviation.

http://www.regentsprep.org/Regents/math/algtrig/ATS2/NormalLesson.htm

Robinson, H.S. , Anumba, C.J. , Carrillo, P.M. & Al-Ghassani, A.M. (2006)

STEPS: A Knowledge Management Maturity Roadmap for Corporate

Sustainability. Business Process Management Journal. 12. 6: 793-808.

Robinson, H.S., Anumba, C.J. & Carrillo, P.M. (2005) Knowledge Management

Practices in Large Construction Organizations. Engineering, Construction

and Architectural Management. 12. 5: 431-45.

Rollett, H. (2003) Knowledge Management: Processes and Technologies. Kluwer

Academic Publishers. Boston. i-xii, 65-66, 209-29.

Russell, P. (2008) The Spirit of Now.

http://www.peterrussell.com/MindMaps/mindmap.php

References

- 258 -

Sadri, G. & Lees, B. (2001) Developing Corporate Culture as a Competitive

Advantage. Journal of Management Development. 20. 10.

SAI-Global (2004) Introduction to Knowledge Management in Construction.

Standards Australia International. Sydney. iv, 2-16.

Schein, E. H. (1997) Organizational Culture and Leadership. Jossey-Bass Inc.

San Fransisco. 2nd Edition. 12-15, 299.

Schein, E. H. (1999) The Corporate Culture Survival Guide. Jossey-Bass Inc.

San Francisco. 1st Edition. 13-14.

Schneider, W.E. (2000) Why Good Management Ideas Fail: The Neglected

Power of Organisational Culture. Strategy & Leadership:

http://www.acclaimsubscriptions.com/usa/catalog/viewItem/?prdid=102185

Sensky, T. (2002) Knowledge Management. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment.

8. 387-96. http://apt.rcpsych.org/cgi/reprint/8/5/395.pdf &

http://www.library.nhs.uk/knowledgemanagement/ViewResource.aspx?res

ID=88667

Sharp, A.G. (c1997) Delphi Technique: The Beginnings.

http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/encyclopedia/Cos-Des/Delphi-

Technique.html

Sheskin, D.J. (2002) Handbook of Parametric and Non Parametric Statistics.

Chapman & Hall. London. 2nd Ed.:

Skyrme, D (1998) Know Why. http://www.skyrme.com/pubs/kwhyhow.htm

Skyrme, D. & Amidon, D. M. (1997) Developing A Knowledge Strategy. Business

Intelligence David Skyrme Associates:

http://www.skyrme.com/pubs/kwhyhow.htm

Smithin, T. (1980) Maps of the Mind: New Pathways to Decision-making.

Business Horizons. 23. 6: 24-28.

Standards Australia (2001) Knowledge Management : A Framework for

Succeeding in the Knowledge Era. Standards Australia International.

Sydney viii, 7, 56.

Straker, D. (2007) Quality Toolbook: Tools About Quality and Quality

Improvement. Quality Tools

http://syque.com/quality_tools/toolbook/Variation/measuring_spread.htm

Stuter, L.M. (1999) The Delphi Technique. What Is It? http://www.learn-

usa.com/transformation_process/acf001.htm

References

- 259 -

Swe, V. & Kleiner, B.H. (1998) Managing and Changing Mistrustful Cultures.

Industrial and Commercial Training. 30. 2.

Tichy, J. (2001) CEO Refresher http://www.refresher.com/ceo.html

Tiwana, A. (2000) The Knowledge Management Toolkit : Practical Techniques for

Building a Knowledge Management System. Prentice Hall PTR. Upper

Saddle River, NJ. xxvi, 5, 608.

Toole, T.M. (1998) Uncertainty and Home Builders' Adoption of Technological

Innovations. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management.

July/August.

Tropman, J.E. (c1997) Decision Making.

http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/encyclopedia/Cos-Des/Decision-

Making.html

UAB University of Alabama at Birmingham (2008) Research Definition. UAB

Institutional Review Board, Birmingham, Alabama 35294.

http://main.uab.edu/show.asp?durki=59029

Upton, G. & Cook, I. (2002) Oxford Dictionary of Statistics.

Uren, D. (2001) IT Benefits Don't Lie in the Hardware and Software: The Profits

to be Won from Investment in IT depend upon Organisational Change.

Weekend Australian. Brisbane, Australia. 50.

Von Krogh, G., Nonaka, I. & Ichijo, K. (2000) Enabling Knowledge Creation: How

to Unlock the Mystery of Tacit Knowledge and Release the Power of

Innovation. Oxford University Press. New York i-x, 3, 5-43, 100, 292.

Von Krogh, G., Roos, J. & Kleine, D. (1998) Knowing in Firms: Understanding,

Managing, and Measuring Knowledge. Harvard Business School Press,

Sage. Boston, MA, London. i-xiv, 8, 25, 84, 123, 223-90.

Walker, D.H.T. (2004) The Knowledge Advantage (K-Adv): Unleashing Creativity

and Innovation. 13. http://www.construction-innovation.info

Wassenaar, D. & Oestreich, H. (1977) How to Conduct a Survey. San Jose,

California, Lansford.

Webster (1956) Webster's New World Dictionary. Macmillan & Co Ltd. London.

Weippert, A. (2000) Project Communication: Traditional vs. Electronic.

Queensland University of Technology (QUT). School of Construction

Management and Property. Brisbane, Queensland Australia.

References

- 260 -

Weippert, A. & Kajewski, S.L. (2008a) AEC Industry Culture Change: A Unique

Philosophy. Proceedings of the CIB Joint International Symposium Dubai,

15-17 November.

Weippert, A. & Kajewski, S.L. (2008b) Knowledge Management (KM):

Capitalising On Industry Know-How Proceedings of the 5th Annual Project

Management Australia Conference, 18 -20 August. Melbourne, Victoria,

Australia.

Weippert, A. & Kajewski, S.L. (2008c) Value-Adding Knowledge Management

(KM) Framework: An AEC Industry Perspective. Proceedings of the CIB

Joint International Symposium Dubai, 15-17 November.

Weippert, A. & Kajewski, S.L. (2009) Internet-based Construction Project

Management. In: Technology, Design and Process Innovation in the Built

Environment. Spon Press. London and New York. 1: 319-38.

Weippert, A., Kajewski, S.L. & Tilley, P.A. (2002) Internet-based Information and

Communication Systems on Remote Construction Projects - A Case Study

Analysis. Construction Innovation. 2. 2: 103-16.

White, M.A. & Bruton, G.D. (2007) The Management of Technology and

Innovation: A Strategic Approach. Thomson South-Western. Canada. 16-

165, 243-57, 393.

Whyte, J. (2002) Virtual Reality and the Built Environment (Paperback).

Architectural Press Oxford. 160.

Williams, A., Dobson, P. & Walters, M. (1993) Changing Culture: New

Organisational Approaches. Institute of Personal Management (IPM).

London. 2nd Ed.: xi-15.

Yeh, Y., Lai, S. & Ho, C. (2006) Knowledge Management Enablers: A Case

Study. Industrial Management & Data. 106. 6: 793-810.

www.emeraldinsight.com

Youngblood, M.D. (2000) Winning Cultures for the New Economy. Strategy and

Leadership. 28 June.

Zweig, D. & Brodt, S. (2006) Sharing Know-how Reluctantly: Why Workers

Protect their Methods. Industrial Engineer. 38. 5.

http://www.allbusiness.com/industrial-engineer/1174496-1.html and

www.emeraldinsight.com

Appendices

- 261 -

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Implementation Strategies

Four implementation strategies identified by Weippert et al. (2002, 103-16) that

organisations may consider when delivering innovative change, and then to

select one that best serves their needs (business, strategic, etc.).

Appendices

- 262 -

1. TOTAL CONVERSION: Where the use of the old or traditional (existing) way of ‘doing things’ is

replaced with a new or better way on a fixed date.

• Advantage: It creates less stress and trained users are ready to start immediately.

• Disadvantage: If poorly planned, under resourced, or the proposed innovative change is

faulty (due to not being fully tested), users may become demoralised and challenge the

implementation process.

2. PARALLEL OPERATIONS: Most suited for implementing a new or unproven innovative

change - where both the old and new way of ‘doing things’ run simultaneously (in parallel), and

where the transition from old to new is done gradually and over time

• Advantage: New results can be compared with the old to ensure all is going well and to

identify areas that require improvement.

• Disadvantage: Double the effort is required to incorporate both ways of doing the same

thing simultaneously, and employees may stall as long as possible to avoid learning the new

way of ‘doing things’


Old way of doing things New way of doing things

Implementation of ONE Innovation-driven Change Initiative within ONE Organisation or Team on a Fixed Date

Fixed Date

Old way of doing things

New way of doing things

Implementation of ONE Innovation-driven Change Initiative within ONE Organisation or Team

Old and new way of doing things simultaneously

Appendices

- 263 -

3. PHASED: Allows separate modules of the innovative change to be added, over time, eventually

making up an integrated solution

• Advantage: Training and education, implementation workload, and valuable resource

requirements can be distributed over a period.

• Disadvantage: Difficulties may arise when attempting to bridge more than one set of

incompatibilities between the components of the old and new way of ‘doing things’.

4. PILOT: Used when delivering a new way of ‘doing things’ to dedicated personnel who are

interested; capable, and who have the motivation and incentive to make it succeed

• Advantage: Two or more alternative innovative changes can be tested concurrently. Should one of the

innovative change pilot tests fail, or found to be unsatisfactory, the damage is usually minimal and

confined to one location or project

• Disadvantage: Generally not suited for implementing a centralised or overarching innovative change

when, for example organisations are at different stages (more advanced than others); or due to

contractual arrangements regarding communications, privacy, confidentiality, accessibility, or utilising

certain processes, products, tools, or systems - as experienced by Kajewski and Weippert (2000),

Weippert and Kajewski (2009, 319-38) and Pepper (1995).

PHASE 1: New way of doing things



A Phased or Staged Implementation of ONE Innovation-driven Change Initiative within ONE Organisation or Team

Old way of doing things

Implementation of SEPARATE Innovation-driven Change Initiatives within MORE than One Organisation or Team




PROJECT 1

PROJECT 2

PROJECT 3

Appendices

- 264 -

Appendix B: Six Culture Classifications

When charged with the challenging task of promoting a more adaptive, flexible

and innovative organisational culture, organisations need to consider and better

understand the internal and external determinants of their culture (Table B 1):

Appendices

- 265 -

Table B 1: Six Culture Classifications

CULTURE CLASSIFICATION

BRIEF DESCRIPTION

1. Sub-cultures Schein (1997, 12-15, 299) notes that culture is not something an organisation ‘has’ rather it is something it ‘is’. In many cases, culture is mistaken as being unified,

singular, primary or dominant, overlooking the fact that organisations, groups or teams are composed of many, often competing sub-cultures, naturally developed

among any group of people who regularly interact within the workplace, and based on shared understandings and interpretations of events. Williams et al. (1993, xi-

15) states the distinctiveness of sub-cultures is based on being completely harmonious, supportive, in opposition, and / or independent of each other. Schein (1999,

13-14) describe an organisation’s culture as ‘heterogeneous’- characterised by the various sub-cultures which are formed around varying roles, functions and levels

within the organisation.

Schneider (2000) comments although an organisation may have a shared mission, vision and strategic intent, it may be that the various sub-cultures within these

environments develop a different set of values or attitudes that conflict with the overall efforts or intentions of the organisation. These sub-cultures or culture ‘silos’ and

‘stovepipes’, take shape when employees and team members build invisible walls and subconscious (intangible) boundaries around themselves - making it more

difficult to communicate between the various sub-groups, or to integrate / combine sub-culture efforts with those of the overarching or main culture of an organisation.

The degree to which the sub-cultures are aligned with each other (in terms of, for example function, market, product, or occupation), is a major determinant of how

well an organisation as a whole functions within a competitive business environment.

2. Strong vs. Weak

Older and more successful organisations are described by Meudell and Gadd (1994) and Bate (1996) as having stronger cultures, natures - identified by way of

communities of people that have a mission and machine-like characteristic that serve the needs of the immediate and wider organisational community. Williams et al.

(1993, xi-15) describes a strong culture as having employees with increased Authority and responsibility, who can be relied on to set their own standards and

discipline, and where this ‘freedom’ is conditional upon the ability to deliver. In Robbins (1998, 138-86, 347, 595-98, 601-46) and Williams et al. (1993, xi-15), the

strength of an organisation’s culture is described as the extent to which its members have ‘internalised’ the beliefs, attitudes and values that exist within an

organisation - whereby individuals undergo a reasoning process to mutually accept, agree with, own and value the beliefs, attitudes and values of other members -

strong cultures are:


Appendices

- 266 -


BRIEF DESCRIPTION

• Characterised by dedication, spontaneity and cooperation in the service of common values that can operate in direct conflict with the goals of senior management

and other sub-cultures;

• Unlikely to be imposed but rather fashioned, through the availability of valid information, openness, trust, and free choice; and

• Less likely to change, whereas in the internalised beliefs, attitudes and behaviours case of a weak culture, changes in policies, rewards, tasks and structures are

likely to modify organisational behaviour and cause a cultural shift.

Grenier and Metes (1995, xv, 320) further recommend care should be taken when trying to ‘brand’ organisations as having either a strong or weak culture by posing

the following three questions:

• Is it a strong culture because its central beliefs and attitudes are strongly held?

• Is it a strong culture because its central beliefs and attitudes are common to all groups (homogeneous)?

• Is it a strong culture because it promotes overall effectiveness?

3. Innovative The delivery and application of most forms of innovative change will impact current or traditional interactions between employees - by for example affecting current

decision-making processes, or by disturbing the overall climate of the workplace and the traditional way of ‘doing things’. Therefore the development of an adaptive

and innovative culture is one of several critical and mutually reinforcing variables and activities that senior management must recognise, put into practice and manage

effectively, when delivering innovative change within a current work environment. In line with Kaarst-Brown and Robey (1999), Williams et al. (1993, xi-15) and White

and Bruton (2007, 16-165, 243-57, 393). A new innovative culture can be accomplished by:

• Letting go of current beliefs, attitudes, values and behaviour towards managing change;

• Build an adaptive culture that can work within a continual change environment;

• Redefining an organisation’s objectives; and

• Studying the organisations and employees’ historical relationships, experiences, and interpretations in their use of technology-led or innovative solutions.

According to Michel (1998) ‘resistance to change is a concern even in organisations where innovation and change are part of the culture’ , which inturn advocates:

• Redefining an organisation’s objectives;



Appendices

- 267 -


BRIEF DESCRIPTION

• Determining how best to achieve these new objectives (through dedicated recourses, innovative capabilities, an ultimate delivery process, appropriate leaders,

training and education requirements; etc.);

• Identifying proficient monitoring tools to help evaluate their progress, and know how to do this effectively against a background of constant change; and

• Building on the collective capabilities and experiences of employees in order to turn the ever-changing environment into a more competitive advantage.

4. Construction In an attempt to better understand and determine the current state-of-play of various construction industry organisations, Hiley (2001) describes the American (and by

and large the international) construction industry as being an essential part of any developed country’s business setting and a major contributor to the nations Gross

Domestic Product (GDP) – further identifying three basic types of construction industry personalities or cultures:

• Undertakers: Referred to as ‘uninspired mourners’ of the past who simply leave everything alone;

• Caretakers: Flowing with the tide, only take care of things that supports their immediate environment - ‘if it ain’t broke…don’t fix it’;

• Risk Takers: Are the only cultures who promote innovative technologies, new communication tools and who deal with these new challenges head on. Contradictory

to the ‘caretakers’ of the industry, risk takers ‘will fix it… even if it ain’t broke’

A number of suggestions to guarantee a successful and efficient construction industry culture, and to ensure the successful delivery of innovative change, include:

• Amin et al. (2001, 50-51) who suggests a ‘team approach’ needs to be fully embraced, encouraged and supported - as a total discipline – by all its stakeholders;

• Michel (1998) agrees conscious effort of interchange, sharing and collaboration is the basis for building close, long-term and team-based working relationships

between various industry sectors, organisations or projects that are focussed on capturing common goals and added value.

• Sadri and Lees (2001) advises the development of indisputable codes of ethics that emphasises integrity and trust in all stakeholder activities

5. Organisational

From a global perspective, Yeh et al. (2006, 793-810) note business competitiveness has made the culture of an organisation a critical aspect of its overall success.

Organisational culture is also defined in diverse yet complementary ways, including:

• ‘The combination of value, core belief, behaviour model and emblem representing the value system of the company and will become the employees’ behaviour

norm’ Park et al. (2004, 106-17);


Appendices

- 268 -


BRIEF DESCRIPTION

• ‘The character or the personality of an organisation - described as the way things are done in an organisation’ McDermott and O'Dell (2001, 76-77);

• ‘Not homogeneous [as] there are always subcultures… sometimes simply different from the organisation as a whole, [or] in opposition to it’ Robbins (1998, 138-86,

347, 595-98, 601-46); and

• ‘A system of shared meaning held by members that distinguishes the organisation from other organisations’ Schneider (2000).

While no organisation has ‘one pure culture’ throughout, Youngblood (2000) believes that every successful organisation has a ‘core culture’ which is critically aligned

with the organisation's strategy and its core leadership practices – these include:

• Control: Based on a military system, with power as the primary motive;

• Collaboration: Emerging from the family and / or athletic team system, in which the underlying motive is affiliation;

• Competence: Derived from the university system, with the fundamental motive of achievement; and

• Cultivation: Growing from religious system(s) and motivated by growth or self-actualisation

Organisations are also described by Orange et al. (2000) as being ‘industrial profit producing machines’, where people are the cogs of that machine - further

identifying two types of these organisational cultures:

• Classic (Machines): Where people must be managed and controlled; leaders are presumed to be rare, heroic and all-knowing; command and control methods are

used to meet planned levels of performance; culture is perceived to be unimportant and given little or no attention; inward focused, and unresponsive; employee

welfare is secondary to financial concerns; and motivation is in the form of economic benefits. These cultures do not suit today’s dynamic and highly competitive

construction industry environment as they are unable to deliver the speed, creativity, motivation and responsiveness needed to compete effectively - therefore less

appealing to the trained, experienced and talented employees sought by these organisations.

• Quantum (Natural systems): This culture is capable; trustworthy; creative; and committed to doing great work; opportunistic and flexible; leadership is a distributed

phenomenon; results are achieved by creating an environment where ingenuity, creativity, and where responsibility can thrive; employees operate with a high level

of autonomy, significant time, energy and are coached to produce extraordinary results – which is vital to the success of adapting to innovative change, focus on


Appendices

- 269 -


BRIEF DESCRIPTION

creating breakthrough innovations; fast, extremely focused and very responsive, the people are treated equal to or above financial concerns; motivation is

provided through the development of an inspiring vision to which everyone has the opportunity to contribute – thereby creating a sense of ownership. These

cultures tend to be more successful in adapting themselves to the delivery of innovative change - due to their ability to effectively encourage and motivate their

employees to develop new ways of thinking and working. These people-orientated organisations have the unsurpassed capability of producing ‘quantum leap’

results that can launch them ahead of other industry competitors. Construction industry organisations with a quantum ‘core’ culture are therefore much more

appealing to the trained, experienced and talented employees.

It is essential to better understand the internal and external determinants of organisational culture; characteristics; its components; and the various influencing factors

that promote a more adaptive, flexible and innovative organisational culture - one that embraces its employees as well as the organisation for what they stand for and

represent. A culture that promotes a shared and common understanding that encourages; motivates; and supports its employees in being risk-takers and more

accepting towards innovative undertakings. Possessing these cultural qualities will assist organisations and their employees to readily accept both the old (traditional)

as well as the new and improved way of ‘doing things’ (innovative change).

6. Learning The knowledge and experience of individuals shape their actions through a process known as ‘learning’ - described by:

• Hari et al. (2005, 533-43) as enabling construction industry employees ‘to change and deal more efficiently with similar situations and cope with, or invent, different

approaches to new situations.’

• Amin et al. (2001, 50-51) as ‘Kolb’s Learning Cycle’ which focuses on the ‘transaction between the internal characteristics and external circumstances [and]

between personal knowledge and social knowledge’ … ‘the process of learning from experience that shapes and actualises developmental potentialities’, [and

being shaped by] ‘…the cultural system of social knowledge’

The information age has allowed the construction industry to benefit from an era of ‘unsurpassed efficiency and flexibility in transferring, cataloguing and retrieving

information about people, processes and technology’, thereby facilitating an atmosphere conductive to ‘higher productivity, increased cost-effectiveness and total

quality awareness’. The construction industry’s thirst for learning and better understanding is portrayed by Orange et al. (2000) as being revolutionary, where

collective project experiences, knowledge and valuable lessons learnt (from multiple experts) can be efficiently pooled, stored, and then disseminated quickly to


Appendices

- 270 -


BRIEF DESCRIPTION

anyone located anywhere in the world (Section 2.2.2.3). To help quench the construction industry’s thirst for knowledge and to promote a knowledge-sharing

philosophy (Section 2.1.5.5), Lopez et al. (2004, 93-101) suggests two sets of essential learning disciplines need to be considered in an effort to develop a strong and

sustainable learning culture:

• Based on the personal and individual learning qualities and capabilities of employees, including the manner in which they think; their commitment to continuous

discovery; the way they perceive issues, encouragement and motivation; as well as their use of shared views.

• To help quench the construction industry’s thirst for knowledge, deals with the organisation’s capabilities to facilitate the proper conditions and learning

environments required to fuel the creation of interpretative knowledge (Section 2.6). Learning environments that promote, for example employees to practice past

disciplines; encourage the desire to operate collectively; and where there are neither personal aspirations for gain nor any need for defensiveness.

Lewis and Thornhill (1994) considers eight organisational culture values encourage organisational learning and promote the sought after ‘collaborative culture’ - Long-

term vision and advance management of the change (Section 2.6.4); communication and dialogue (Section 2.6.4.1); trust and respect for all individuals (Section

2.5.7); teamwork; empowerment (Section 2.2.3.5); ambiguity tolerance; risk assumption (Sections 2.2.5, 2.3.3, 2.3.6, 2.3.7 and 2.4.4); respect and diversity; and

encouragement (Sections 2.2.3.5 and 2.6.4).

Appendices

- 271 -

Appendix C: Six Culture Change Methods

C.1. Change Activity Model

Organisations who wish to become that ‘excellent’ organisation and experience

increased competitive advantages through the delivery and application of

innovative change may have to simultaneously introduce a culture change

program that gradually cultivates the existing culture to realise the need to accept

the proposed new way of ‘doing things’. However challenging or far reaching the

aims, objectives and goals of innovative change may seem, Lewis and Thornhill

(1994) believes they are achievable by considering the five sequential ‘change

activities’ – referred to as the Change Activity Model (Figure C 1 and Table C 1):

Adapted from Gilley and Maycunich (2000)

Figure C 1: Change Activity Model

Define

Desired Goals

Analyse Current

State

Implement & Evaluate Chosen

Strategies

Decide on Appropriate

Strategies

Review Available Change

Strategies

1

5

4 3

2

START

END

Appendices

- 272 -

Table C 1: Key to Figure C 1

FIVE SEQUENTIAL ‘CHANGE ACTIVITIES’

1 Defining clear, measurable and time-specific goals of attitudes, beliefs, and behaviours

2 Achieved by comparing the organisations driving forces against the restraining force (Sections

2.1.5.3 and C.4) – that is, comparing factors likely to promote change, against those likely to hold

back change.

3 Various approaches to achieve organisational change are to be considered

4 Gaining answers to the following questions are potentially useful when deciding on which change

strategy to adopt (Section 2.3.2.3.1):

• Are the strategies likely to gain the support of those who will play a part in their delivery

(particularly senior and line managers)?

• Are the strategies too expensive and time-consuming?

• Are the strategies likely to involve those concerned with the delivery, being embroiled in

organisational politics?

5 Continuous monitoring and ending with a thorough review

C.2. Change Process Model

For substantial change in culture to occur, Williams et al. (1993, xi-15)

recommend organisations adopt the Change Process Model to help facilitate the

delivery process of innovative change - made up of five critical activities to help

ensure the long term effects of change within an organisation. Each of these

activities is explained in Figure C 2:

Figure C 2: Change Process Model

Reflections

Assumptions

Act

ions

Commitments

Choices

1

24

3

Appendices

- 273 -


FIVE CRITICAL CHANGE ACTIVITIES

1 Assumptions (Section 2.4.3.5) can be considered as the ‘taken for granted’ beliefs that individuals have

about reality and which guide their actions – also referred to as the ‘anchors by which most decisions

are reached’, and are to be isolated and fully understood before an organisation will advance and

accept any change. The choices, commitments and actions that organisations take towards change are

based on these assumptions.

2 For an organisation to understand the decision-making process - by allowing it to carefully construct a

rationale for the decision made - by examining how decisions are made, who participates in the process,

what criteria are used to reach a definite outcome, and what consequences follow the choices made.

3 Make commitments that bring about real and lasting change - requiring organisations to choose

between two or more desirable outcomes. Leaders and their employees must determine which of the

positive outcomes they desire most and to which they are willing to allocate financial and human

recourses over a lengthy period. Organisations must minimise their risks and commit to choices (with

both positive and negative outcomes) they can ‘live with’ in the short / long term.

4 Take definite actions to help satisfy their assumptions, choices and commitments – which may include

the allocation of financial and human resources restructuring of the organisation etc. all of which enable

the organisation and its individuals to make changes designed to bring about change.

5 Most important activity - where organisations attempt to understand why they made certain decisions –

occurring after the completion of each of the four previous activities, thereby enhancing the individual’s

awareness of why an action and, importantly, how to improve upon that action.

C.3. Decision-Making Model

Williams et al. (1993, xi-15) maintain the Decision-making Tool (Figure C 3: and

Table C 3) is a common and rational tool that encapsulates the various stages

one goes through in resolving culture change issues.

Appendices

- 274 -

Figure C 3: Change Decision Making Model


FIVE STAGES OF DECISION-MAKING

1 Indicates the need to ensure the decision-making process is part of, or in line with the organisation’s

corporate strategy if it is going to have any chance of success (Section 2.3.1);

2 Represents the agreed statement about the organisation’s overall purpose. Usually derived at during

the process of developing the organisation’s corporate strategy. Essentially the ‘mission statement’ of

an organisation highlighting the ‘type’ and nature of its business by referring to, for example standards

of work; quality improvement; resources; and influence on society;

3 Requires the need to clarify the nature of a problem or issue by seeking further analytical information,

etc. on, for example an existing processes in need of improvement;

4 Formulate possible courses of action or solutions; evaluate alternatives; and then make a choice of the

most appropriate of these;

5 Requires careful planning on how to put the chosen solution(s) into effect – which is then implemented

and adjusted if necessary

C.4. Force-field Model

Similar to recommending the use of the Force-field Analysis recommended in

Section 2.1.5.3, McShane and Travaglione (2007) and McShane and Travaglione

IMPLEMENT CHOICE

MISSION & CORPORATE STRATEGY

PROBLEM

Represent the revolving and ongoing influences that the three stages and their relevant factors have on the sequence of events when bringing about innovation-

driven change within an organisation

3

2

45

1

Appendices

- 275 -

(2007) recommend the use of the Force-field Model (Table C 4) - based on early

1950’s research in finding ways on how to change the behaviours of individuals

within various social environments - portraying two sets of forces (driving and

restraining), which may be considered during the decision-making stage to help

bring about a change in culture.

Table C 4: Force-field Model

EXAMPLES OF DRIVING FORCES

EXAMPLES OF RESTRAINING FORCES

Change at the top Career-driven organisation

Powerful external influence Low turnover

Vision of the future Success

Powerful leader Stable environment

Externally focused Criteria of success not visible

Crisis or opportunity Lack of clear Authority

Acceptance of need to change Blindness to the need to change

Adapted from Schein (1997, 12-15, 299)

The use of a model of forces helps identify sets of forces that may have an

impact on the ‘target’ (changing the existing culture of an organisation); promotes

consideration of the relative strengths and weaknesses of these forces; and fuels

the exploration of alternative strategies to modify or balance these forces. This

approach is supported by Williams et al. (1993, xi-15), by stating all human-

based systems ‘instinctively’ attempt to maintain an equilibrium by unconsciously

trying to maximise autonomy in relation to their environment.

Appendices

- 276 -

C.5. Six Key Methods of Changing Culture

In Robbins (1998, 138-86, 347, 595-98, 601-46) and Williams et al. (1993, xi-15)

reference is made to six key methods to bring about change within the existing

culture of an organisation (Figure C 4: and Table C 5).

Adapted from Robbins (1998, 138-86, 347, 595-98, 601-46) and Bate (1996)

Figure C 4: Six Key Methods of Changing Culture

Changing

CORPORATE IMAGE

Changing STRUCTURES,

SYSTEMS & TECHNOLOGY

Changing

PLACES

Changing

BEHAVIOUR

Changing

BELIEFS & ATTITUDES

Changing

PEOPLE

CHANGING ORGANISATIONAL

CULTURE

Through:• Use of role models (Champions) • Participation • Use of formal communication • Counselling • Management Education

1

2

3

4

5

6

Appendices

- 277 -


SIX KEY METHODS OF CHANGING CULTURE

1. Changing People: By removing any negative Influences pertaining to those (particularly) in key

positions or those with more uncompromising or stubborn attitudes towards change (set in their ways).

In this case recruitment and redundancy are frequently part of the change process, and due to

employee commitment and positive culture being recognised as being essential to the long-term

survival of a company, it is suggested that the highly disruptive event of changing of people is done only

once – that is, making one ‘large cut’ rather than a series of small ones.

2. & 3. Changing the Beliefs, Attitudes and Behaviour:

• By recognising the importance of senior / key individuals acting as role models or champions to

achieve the desired attitudes and behaviours of employees.

• By encouraging employees to participate and attend formal and informal group discussions,

becomes an alternate methods for developing shared beliefs and attitudes – encouraging group

participation in problem solving; and promote participative management practice.

• Through formally communicating the organisation’s culture to employees, team members and the

local community - through in-house or external corporate advertising media groups and ‘feel good’

publishing.

• Through counselling whereby each level of management (committed to the change) undertakes one-

to-one interviews with their employees, explaining in detail the intended changes; any implications

for the individual concerned; and defining what would be expected of those working in the ‘new’

organisation, department, group or team.

• Management education is a central strategy for many organisations seeking to achieve cultural

change - where change consultants are engaged to run a customised change program for senior

management and decision makers to assist them in ‘cascading’ the newly acquired knowledge,

management process and way of ‘doing things’ down to the rest of the staff.

4. Changing Places: By recognising that the culture and sub-cultures within an organisation develop

around differences in functions, roles, and levels of its members - leaders can promote the existing and

overall culture of an organisation by ‘reshuffling’ or ‘rotating’ work groups and / or individuals (with

different knowledge, experiences and learning) and relocate them in key positions within other work

groups or environments (sub-cultures).

5. Changing Structures, Systems and / or technology: By revising and enhancing existing and

ineffective reward programs, appraisal methods and fruitless incentives, improve existing monitoring,

budgeting and control systems – can increase chances of changing people’s beliefs and attitudes

towards a new way of ‘doing things’.

6. Changing Corporate Image: Achieved through changing a name or logo; ‘clever’ advertising; the

distribution of publications of success; hosting of social and engaging fund raising events; and / or by

encouraging regular employee and family involvement, etc.

Appendices

- 278 -

C.6. Generic Approaches to Changing Culture

Organisations may consider including the following four generic approaches

described by Schein (1999, 13-14) in their decision-making process towards

determining the most appropriate way in bringing about a sustainable change in

culture:

• Aggressive: Also referred to as cultural vandalism or wilful attack on the

traditional values of an organisation and its members, which creates disruption

and provides clear notice of intention to establishing a ‘new culture order’.

These ‘pre-civilised bullies’ of the industry tend to live in the past and are

sometimes motivated solely by the desire to irritate and create trauma.

Fortunately they belong to a small minority within the business world -

Additional terms used include power coercive; conflict centred; non-

collaborative; win-lose; imposed; dictate approach; and unilateral

• Conciliate: A conciliatory approach achieves cultural change through ‘non-

dramatic, gradual and routine means’, and in many cases goes unnoticed by

those involved. Although plausible, the literature suggests that it is more likely

to be successful in bringing about ‘first order development change’ rather than

‘second order transformational change’ - Additional terms used include group

problem solving; win-win; collaborative; emergent; integrative; joint approach

• Corrosive: An essentially political process, can effect major change through the

distribution of power and Authority within the corporate hierarchy. The

organisation is viewed in terms of a ‘formal Authority and informal power’ –

that is, an invisible network of power structures that are shared by all, with no

dominant party, which makes the imposition of a solution by any individual or

group difficult. Ones this ‘old boys’ network’ culture is established, changing it

becomes increasing difficult due to the imperative to retain the status quo -

Additional terms used include coalition; unplanned; evolutionary; networking;

informal

• Indoctrinate: Organisations and their members can - using cultural training

programs - focus on the concept of cultural change as a ‘learning process’

Williams et al. (1993, xi-15). Because training is in its broadest sense planned

Appendices

- 279 -

and programmed, this approach to establishing a new culture is different from

the rest, because the cultural programs are designed, planned, and presented,

and not seen as incidental, self-directing or individually centred. It is less

aggressive - imposing a ‘suggested culture in a peaceful, yet no more

convincing manner. As such, this process may be better suited to technical

rather than cultural forms of learning – that is, where a training program is less

sensitive to the special characteristics and qualities of cultural knowledge and

learning requirements - additional terms used include normative and re-

educative

C.7. Three-Stage Model

Williams et al. (1993, xi-15) notes that in an environment where the ‘old ways of

thinking and acting’ are no longer accepted, and employees are required to

develop and / or adapt to a new way of thinking and ‘doing things’, this can be a

slow and fragmented process which is difficult to achieve. Hence, an increasing

number of organisations consider applying ‘revolutionary’ forms of culture change

(rather than ‘evolutionary’) to achieve their long-term goals.

One such ‘revolutionary’ culture change is the Three-stage Model (Figure C 5

and Table C 6), which is based on early 1950s research and described by Schein

(1997, 12-15, 299), McShane and Travaglione (2007) and Pepper (1995) as a

useful mechanism for bringing about change to the culture of a organisation.

Although referred to as a ‘revolutionary’ change mechanism, it does not mean a

new or improved culture will be created overnight. The unfreezing or unlearning

process of an old culture may however be rapid and more permanent, facilitating

a strong foundation for developing new concepts, beliefs, attitudes, values and

assumptions for the organisation.

Appendices

- 280 -

Figure C 5: Three-Stage Model to Changing Culture

Schein (1997, 12-15, 299) and Schein (1997, 12-15, 299) agree, ‘unfreezing’

culture (‘unlearning’ the old way of ‘doing things’) and then ‘refreezing’ a new

culture (‘relearning’ a new way of ‘doing things’), temporarily destabilises the

perceived and interpersonal surroundings of employees. Organisations therefore

need to be aware that this disruption within work environments causes

employees to experience an increased measure of anxiety, insecurity and

discomfort, which may result an instinctive resistance towards changing ‘the way

we do things around here’, even if it means distorting, denying, projecting or

falsifying the ‘new truth’.

INITIAL LEVEL Relating to

implementing an innovation-

driven change initiative

NEW LEVEL Relating to

implementing an innovation-driven change

initiative UNFREEZE

CHANGE

REFREEZE

Driving Forces

Restraining Forces

Driving Forces

Restraining Forces

Driving Forces

Restraining Forces

1

2

3

STA

RT

FINISH

& B

EYON

D

Appendices

- 281 -


THREE-STAGES TO CHANGING CULTURE

STAGE ONE

‘Unfreeze’ All

Existing Forces

Usually based on concepts, beliefs, attitudes, values and assumptions - comprising

of three different actions, each of which is vital to help justify the need for change to

be clear, unbiased and recognised by all employees. This is achieved by ensuring

and promoting:

• Enough disconfirming data to justify serious discomfort and disequilibrium. In this

case disconfirming data is referred to as ‘any items of information that show the

organisation that some of its goals are not being met or that some of its

processes are not accomplishing what they are suppose to’ Fellows and Liu

(2003, 28-32, 44, 91-97).

• The connection between the disconfirming data and important goals causes a

sufficient level of anxiety and / or guilt amongst employees.

• A sufficient level of ‘psychological safety’, where members of the organisation can

see a possibility of solving the problem, without the loss of identity or integrity,

thereby allowing them to acknowledge the afore-mentioned disconfirming data

rather than defensively denying it.

STAGE TWO

Deliver Innovative

Change

Once ‘unfrozen’, choose the most appropriate implementation strategy (Section

2.3.1) to re-establishing the equilibrium of forces (at a new level), which can be

achieved by either strengthening the driving forces; weakening the restraining forces;

introducing new forces; or undertaking all three (Section C.4).

STAGE THREE

‘Refreeze’ New

Way of ‘Doing

Things’

To ensure that the new culture is a stable and inherent feature of the organisation,

one must ensure the forces that were altered or newly introduced during this process

continue - by for example introducing improved reward and incentive schemes

(Section 2.4.4.3). Only once the effect of the planned culture change is successful,

will the underlying concepts, beliefs, attitudes, values and assumptions towards the

delivery and application of ‘the new way of doing things’ become ‘frozen’ in the

organisation.

Appendices

- 282 -

Appendix D: Mind Mapping Relevant Factors

To measure (rate) the relevance of the six hypothesised dynamics (see Chapter

Two) – in terms of being key components of a CDF for delivering innovative

change within construction industry organisations - this research undertook a

Mind Mapping exercise, whereby related issues, key words, notes, phrases and

concepts were identified as factors and sub-factors for each of the six dynamics -

Change; Innovation; Implementation; Culture; Leadership; and Training and

Education.

A snapshot of the Mind Mapping process for each of the six dynamics is

presented next:

Appendices

- 283 -

D.1. ‘Change’ Dynamic

Need

Construction Industry

To experience increased levels of professionalism

Such as: a better standard of work; more cost effective projects; fewer delays and expensive mistakes; fewer accidents and less ill health; reduced staff turnover; earlier completion dates; an advantage over competition; and increased repeat business (Rethinking Construction 2000).

T/F?With change being the 'only thing constant in our world today', many industry participants are 'seduced' by these new technologies, 'blinding' them from being focused on the real reasons and need for change (Hee H. 1998).

Organizational

T/F?"Organisations, groups and teams to realise and create a 'need' for change, before the act of change can take place""If people fail to see the need for change (whether threat or opportunity driving it), they will not change" (Black J. S. and Gregersen H. B. 2002) p20

The need to transform a business Redesigning and adapting existing jobs Transforming the current culture and sub-cultures(Black J. S. and Gregersen H. B. 2002).

T/F? Many organisations decide to change their existing culture based on the need to implement a strategic change (strategy driven), due to a certain 'crises' or 'opportunity' being identified i.e.: many organisations are driven to change due to business demands, not necessarily by the need to change culture.

T/F?Organisations, groups and teams are to realise and create a 'need' for change, before the act of change can take place. Unfortunately, for people to be convinced of the need for change is not easybecause people tend not to see the threats and opportunities because they are 'blinded' by the 'way we have always done things around here'.(Black J. S. and Gregersen H. B. 2002)

Drivers

Competition

Innovation / Technology

"Impacts" facing the industry: Hectic pace Increased productivity Legal infrastructure Power of knowledge Creative destruction(Hee 1998)

Improving the following performance characteristics of construction: Production process (as a whole) Output Employment Productivity International competitiveness Quality of products Cost and prices (Gann 1997).

Cash for knowledge Long term cost benefit Competitive advantage Time saving Quality improvement Education Financial incentive(CRISP 2000)

productivity gains increased business turnover; shorter cycle time - a perception that it provides an expectation of faster cycle and response times; systems to manage larger and more complex projects; improved accuracy and consistency of documentation.(Fujitsu Centre 1998)

Organizational

Dissatisfaction with current situation and acceptance Impact of environmental factors Momentum towards change - the domino effect Motivation by consultant Commitment of top management (Buch and Wetzel 2001)


Innovation / Technology

Time to market Competition Initial development cost Risk of failure Initial development time Awareness of track record Knowledge sharing Understanding of process(CRISP 2000)

F f th k d f li f i it b t d t h

Decision-Making Factors and Sub-Factors

(Continue onto next page

Iden

tify

Con

nect

ion

/ Lin

k / R

elat

ions

hip

betw

een

Fact

ors

or S

ub-fa

ctor

s Id

entif

y C

onne

ctio

n / L

ink

/ Rel

atio

nshi

p be

twee

n Fa

ctor

s or

Sub

-fact

ors

Appendices

- 284 -

2 - CHANGE

BarriersOrganizational

Fear of the unknown and feelings of insecurity about need to change Disruption of routine and usual patterns of behaviour Loss of face Threat to the power base and other vested interests Blindness to the need to change Group norms and values (Buch and Wetzel 2001)

'Clouded' employee 'programming' -It is important not to 'camouflage' the true nature of a change prior to its implementation -i.e.: not to portray the change as less dramatic and positively beneficial to the employees and the company. -This is the grounds of resistance towards innovated change

(Hughes T., Williams T. et al. 2000).

-Middle managers may be convinced of implementing an innovative system -and realise its importance to business needs, -but may be confronted with dissatisfaction and unresponsiveness from employees and even senior management -due to lack of knowledge, awareness or understanding

(Kaarst-Brown M.L. and Robey D. 1999).

T/F?:Reasons for not investing innovative change: Executives being convinced it is more of a cost factor (producing unacceptable returns), rather than a value generator; Perception that it is bad business and equally non-contributing, to replace old, unused, or broken technologies, with new ones. Difficulty in getting integrated systems. Large percentage of managers and employees don't know or even care about the potential Insufficient stakeholder drive. Lack of time (too busy) to implement or learn a new a new technology or process. The fear (of potential embarrassment) individuals may still feel inadequate or too stupid to use this new solution (Whyte J. 2002).


lack of people with an 'overarching' vision for the industry; fragmented and adversarial nature of the industry; lack of trust among firms; lack of shared language in which to understand the supply chain process; and lack of shared / common / compatible technology (Fujitsu Centre 1998).

Sustainable Strategy / Methods

Three-Stage Model (Unfreeze / Freeze)(Williams A., Dobson P. et al. 1993)

Achieved by:1. 'unfreezing' existing forces, 2. introduce change (geared to re-establishing the 'equilibrium of forces') 3. 'refreeze' the new situation

Change Process Model(Gilley J. W. and Maycunich A. 2000)

1. Identifying Assumptions2. Analysing Choices3. Making Commitments4. Selecting Appropriate Action5. Engaging Critical Reflection

Decision-Making Model (Williams A., Dobson P. et al. 1993)

Five Factors to Consider: Corporate Strategy: culture change has to be part of the corporate strategy of an organisation Mission: This refers to the agreed statement of the organisation's overall purpose, (derived at by senior management) Problem: Clarifying the nature of the problem, seeking further analytical information, etc Choice: Formulating possible courses of action or solutions, evaluating alternatives and choosing most appropriate Implementation: Requires careful planning on how to put the chosen solution(s) into effect

THREE guidelines when using the Decision Making Model: When planning to change culture, it must be grounded in the corporate strategy. Sufficient attention must be given to each of the equally important sets of activities within the model. The implementation of a culture change plan is most effective when those involved in the change can experience 'ownership' of the problem or solution - usually most effective during the early stages of decision-making.

Force-Field Model(Williams A., Dobson P. et al. 1993)Driving

Restraining

Three Change Tactics(Black J. S. and Gregersen H. B. 2002)To help determine a more 'timely' and cost effective implementation of a change

Anticipatory Change Reactive Change Crisis Change

Change Program(Lewis and Thornhill 1994)

1. Defining the desired goals2. Analysing the current state 3. Reviewing the change strategies available4. Deciding on the appropriate strategies5. Implementing and evaluating the strategies

9 STEP Transition Strategy(Grenier R. and Metes G. 1995)

1. Engage2. Visioning3. Deciding4. Consensus5. Entire Organisation6. Building a Planning and Designing Culture7. Sensing Readiness8. Create a Prototype9. Commissioning a Project Leader

Timing

The timing of implementing a change process or method in an organisation could determine the success or failure of that change change tactic can present the greatest potential benefits and lowest cost to a firm,

when change involves steep and ongoing learning, the sooner a firm starts changing, the greater will be the firm's advantage over slower-to-change competitors (Black J. S. and Gregersen H. B. 2002)

THREE TYPES:

Anticipatory: When change leaders look ahead and predict change in advance Reactive: When change leaders react to signs and signals that change is needed Crisis: When signs and signals to change can no longer be denied Adapted from (Black J. S. and Gregersen H. B. 2002)

LeadersChampions



Iden

tify

Con

nect

ion

/ Lin

k / R

elat

ions

hip

betw

een

Fact

ors

or S

ub-fa

ctor

s Id

entif

y C

onne

ctio

n / L

ink

/ Rel

atio

nshi

p be

twee

n Fa

ctor

s or

Sub

-fact

ors

Appendices

- 285 -

D.2. ‘Innovation’ Dynamic

- INNOVATION

Drivers

Quantum Shift (Disruptive Events)(Youngblood M.D. 2000)

Effects on today's industry business environment: Trends towards global business (globalisation and increased competition) Breakthroughs in technologies that have empowered users to be able to work physically independent of organisations Changes in personal lifestyles that make non-traditional work process more acceptable (demographic trends) Sophisticated and increased demand of clients Increased complexity and decreasing time pressures (pace of economic change) new employment patterns, organisational structures and changing clients growing importance of environmental issues and pressure groups (Grenier R. and Metes G. 1995; Flanagan R. 1998)

Hectic pace: Sayings like 'Don't fix it if it isn't broke' is changing to 'If you have been doing it the same way for the past 20 years, chances are you are not doing it right anymore' Increased productivity Legal infrastructure Power of knowledge Creative destruction (Hee 1998)


Challenges Hectic pace Increased productivity Legal infrastructure Power of knowledge Creative destruction (Ahmad I. 2000) Impacts

Improve performance characteristics in construction: Production process (as a whole) Output Employment Productivity International competitiveness Quality of products Cost and prices(Gann D. 1997)

Increased levels of professionalism: a better standard of work; more cost effective projects; fewer delays and expensive mistakes; fewer accidents and less ill health; reduced staff turnover; earlier completion dates; an advantage over competition; increased repeat business (Rethinking Construction 2000).

Advantages: productivity gains increased business turnover shorter cycle time systems to manage larger and more complex projects improved accuracy and consistency of documentation.(Fujitsu Centre 1998)


Organizational

Competitive advantage Process problem. Technological opportunity External requirements(Mitropoulos and Tatum 2000)

Better integration of information flows between different firms in projects; Automation of routine information processing and communication activities within project teams; and Production of new information providing new levels of transparency about processes (Gann 1997)

Stakeholder Benefits

Architects Quantity Surveyor Consulting Engineers Principal and Specialised Contractors Building Suppliers and Manufactures Small-To-Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs)(DCITA 1998; Fujitsu Centre 1998; Foresight 2000; Lau, Wong et al. 2001).

Barriers Construction Industry

The nature of the industry's constructed products, organisations and processes: site-based nature of erecting, assembly and installation buildings and structures becoming more complex - often involving the integration of expensive systems; and legacy of sunk costs.(Gann D. 1997)

Executives, being convinced that investing in innovation-driven change is more of a cost factor (producing unacceptable returns), rather than a value generator; Perception that it is bad business and equally non-contributing, to replace old, unused, or broken technologies, wit Difficulty in getting integrated ICT systems. Large percentage of managers and employees don't know (or even care) about the potential of innovative change Insufficient stakeholder drive. Lack of time (too busy) to implement or learn a new a new technology or process. The fear (of potential embarrassment) that even with formal training and education available, certain individuals may still feel inadequate to benefit from an innovation-driven change initiative(Whyte J. 2002).

Suitability / Compatibility (Does it meet your needs?)Advantages

Iden

tify

Con

nect

ion

/ Lin

k / R

elat

ions

hip

betw

een

Fact

ors

or S

ub-fa

ctor

s

Identify Connection / Link /

Relationship between Factors or Sub-factors

Decision-M

aking Factors and Sub-Factors

Appendices

- 286 -

D.3. ‘Implementation’ Dynamic

ION

Sustainable Strategy / Methods

Four strategies: Total conversion at a fixed date Parallel operations with a gradual transition Phased implementation Pilot implementation(Paulson B.C. 1995).

Leaders

Champions Business success alone is insufficient for managers to justify the implementation of innovative change strategies, unless there is a strong support for such change from CHAMPIONS (preferably senior management within the organisation).

3 Cornerstones of SuccessOverall CommitmentDurable VisionPossibilities

Timing

Drivers

Successful Implementation Provides: an improved level of professionalism (unknown in the past); a better standard of work; more cost effective projects; fewer delays and expensive mistakes; fewer accidents and less ill health; reduced staff turnover; earlier completion dates; an advantage over competition; and increased repeat business (Rethinking Construction 2000). By Recommending:

Increasing awareness of, and skills to implement strategic change Restructuring the industry supply chain to leverage benefits Encouraging a performance-based, value-added focus for innovative Chang(Rethinking Construction 2000).

taking an incremental approach to implementation; ensuring the new initiatives have business benefits; changing / re-engineering the organisation to take advantage of the innovative solution use of individual projects to fund incremental adoption and as an opportunity to learn to use the new solution training and development of staff to be able to use the technology successfully; and top-level management 'buy-in' (Fujitsu Centre 1998).

Barriers Construction Industry

lack of people with an 'overarching' vision for the industry; fragmented and adversarial nature of the industry; lack of trust among firms; lack of shared language in which to understand the supply chain process; and lack of shared / common / compatible technology (Fujitsu Centre 1998).

high cost of innovating or learning a new technology - due to tight margins for funding; fear of over-investment ; industry reluctance to invest sufficiently; belief that innovative solutions alone (without re-engineering / organisational change) can deliver promised benefits; resistance to reengineering / organisational change; lack of newly required skills and awareness of opportunities; belief that innovation is not necessary - that the industry is doing sufficiently without it; and client, senior partner and manager resistance (Fujitsu Centre 1998).

Organisations pursuing technological advancement, motivated only by profit maximisation is not enough. Many firms adopt innovative tools and systems for profit-motivated reasons and fail due to underestimating the difficult task of managing its impact upon organisation structures and cultures -i.e.: successful ICT adoption depends on the 'politics of technology' in its management in the organisation

(Tantoush T. and Clegg S. 2001).

DEFINITION Implementation is the 'challenge that comes at the end of all new (and old) methods for improving organisations', including: architecture development, change management, total quality management and new systems (Revenaugh 1994)

GUIDELINES

Maintain openness and honesty Encourage participatory planning in defining goals, objectives, ETC Managerial support and involvement should be evident throughout The goals for the change should be understood and viewed positively by all concerned. Overall benefits are to be maximised and efforts made to coordinate the goals There must be enough opportunities for education and training as well as positive incentives Both the organisation and new system must be designed for the people who will use it (Paulson B.C. 1995).

1. Attempt to understand the organisation's culture and attitudes to training;2. recognise all levels of the organisation's culture in order to consider how positive attitudes can be fostered at all of these;3. determine measurable goals for changing attitudes to training in the organisation in relation to time;4. utilise (amongst other things) "Driving / Restraining Forces" to analyse the extent of the problem, the task to be undertaken, and how to bring about change;5. adopt a proactive approach to the advancement of organisational-level training and evaluation by 'promoting' this to senior management 6. choose a suitable change strategy or strategies to promote these new organisational beliefs;7. involve a wide range of organisational participants in the implementation stage of the attempt to change attitudes; and lastly8. actively evaluate the results of this 'hands-on' approach (Lewis and Thornhill 1994).

Increase external requirements: Create 'problems': Increase potential for competitive advantage: Increase technological opportunities: Closer cooperation between technology developers and contractors: Reduce the contractor's initial costs and costs of failure: (Mitropoulos P. and Tatum C.B. 2000)

Identify Connection / Link / R

elationship between

Factors or Sub-factors


elationship betw

een Factors or Sub-factors


Appendices

- 287 -

D.4. ‘Culture’ Dynamic

Invest in People

Respect, Recruit and Retain(Rethinking Construction 2000)

Shared Ownership

T/F? 'Shared Ownership Cultures' can fail, due to: Employees having 'initiative fatigue'. Employees may not understand the 'proposal' (too complex, unconventionally written (too technical), etc). 'Managers listen - yet do not change' (threatened by perceived 'disempowerment'). New or Improved plans not supported by appropriate and timely actions from decision makers.(Baines A. 1998)

T/F? 'Employee participation' is essential, because any organisational policies and plans will have an impact (in one way or another) on their 'working' lives (Baines A. 1998).

Empowerment

T/F?To ensure improved and overall performance: it is important to involve, engage and empower all people in issues that directly affect them (Rethinking Construction 2000)

T/F?Investing in human capital, to bridge the skills gap, in research and development, and knowledge awareness, will help to maintain competitiveness. (Foresight 2000)

Methods of Culture Change

1. Changing People 2. Changing Places3. Changing People's Beliefs and Attitudes Through: use of role models participation use of formal communication counselling Management education4. Changing Behaviour5. Alligning Structures, Systems, and/or Technology6. Changing Corporate Image(Williams A., Dobson P. et al. 1993)

Beliefs are "Learnt": gained by observation or experience; inferred from existing beliefs; or gained from external sources (Williams A., Dobson P. et al. 1993)

Belief Factors:1. The nature of the organisations environment:

2. Acceptable levels of organisational performance in terms of:

3. The organisation appropriate for success:

4. The organisation and its:

5. Ones own and that of others work behaviour:

(Williams A., Dobson P. et al. 1993)

Two Types of Values: Instrumental: - values that result in feelings of satisfaction and dissatisfaction Moral: - values that result in feelings of pride and joy by carrying a sense of obligation (should or aught) (Williams A., Dobson P. et al. 1993)

Attitudes: described as a "learned predisposition to respond in a consistently favourable or unfavourable manner to a given object or idea" Most attitudes are developed over time involves an affective evaluation that prompts one to respond in a particular way not necessarily based on 'direct' experience individuals often hold a 'stereotype' attitude towards concepts such as management, business and technology, even without sufficient or complete information(Williams A., Dobson P. et al. 1993)

Assumptions: are strongly held by members of a group or organisation tend to be those realities or activities one neither confronts nor debates There are various types of assumptions shared, formed or taught within a group or organisation - i.e. those relating to industry, reality, truth, time and space culture is the sum total of all the shared and taken-for-granted assumptions that a group has learnt throughout its history Assumptions are difficult to change (Schein E. H. 1999)

'Culture Change Program Activities':1. Defining the desired goals2. Analysing the current state 3. Reviewing the change strategies available4. Deciding on the appropriate strategies5. Implementing and evaluating the strategies (Lewis P. and Thornhill A. 1994)

Improved Corporate Image

T/F? via name, logo, advertising, publication of success, etc typically develops positive attitudes among both customers and staff enhances their overall commitment towards the organisation.


Iden

tify

Con

nect

ion

/ Lin

k / R

elat

ions

hip

betw

een

Fact

ors

or S

ub-fa

ctor

s Id

entif

y C

onne

ctio

n / L

ink

/ Rel

atio

nshi

p be

twee

n Fa

ctor

s or

Sub

-fact

ors


Appendices

- 288 -

1 -FOUR APPROACHES:

1.Aggressive: Referred to as 'Cultural Vandalism' 2.Conciliate: Cultural change can take place through 'non-dramatic, gradual and routine means', 3.Corrosive: an invisible network of power structures that are shared by all, with no dominant party

- changing it becomes increasing difficult due to the status quo. 4.Indoctrinate: these cultural programs are designed, planned, and presented,

therefore seen as not being incidental, self-directing or individually centred. (Bate P. 1996)

ALIGN Culture (people) with Innovative Change

The link between implementing innovative change and organisational culture is not a new phenomenon (Uren D. 2001).

T/F? Change projects fail to meet their performance goals due to organisations giving inadequate attention to non-technical (human and organisational) factors(Cabrera A., Cabrera E.F. et al. 2001)

T/F?Organisations must efficiently manage the changes imposed whilst MINIMISING the human costs of the transition andMAXIMISING the benefits from the technology. (Cabrera A., Cabrera E.F. et al. 2001)

An organisation can have the optimum implementation strategy, but if its culture is not ALIGNED with and supportive of that strategy, the strategy will either stall or fail (Schneider W.E. 2000).

The task of 'aligning' innovative change and people (culture) is not an easy task, it is important to understand the interconnections between the two and their relationship with other important organisation sub-systems -i.e.: organisational structure; business and management processes; and strategy.

(Cabrera A., Cabrera E.F. et al. 2001)

Determining new and improved ways of doing businessis dependent on the innovation of the user, not only the technology itself - requiring careful consideration and a greater emphasis to the 'human touch' (Gore Jr E.W. 1999; Ahmad I. 2000; Claver E., Llopis J. et al. 2001)

Motivation / Incentives / Rewards

T/F?"Does there have to be some threat or sense of failure or crisis before people are motivated to make changes?" (Schein E. H. 1999) p116

TWO methods to motivate people to change:1. When they are confronted with a real or perceived THREAT (e.g. job security, increasing competition, etc)2. Through real or perceived OPPORTUNITIES (e.g. improved profitability, greater productivity, increased employee development, etc)

The "ARCTIC Approach" for Rewards:

1. Achievement Accomplishment: The need to meet or beat goals or to do better in the future than one has done in the past. Competition: The need to compare ones performance with that of others and to do better.2. Relations Approval: The need to be appreciated and recognised by others. Belonging: The need to feel part of and accepted by the group.

3. Conceptual / Thinking Problem Solving: The need to confront problems and create answers. Coordination: The need to relate pieces and integrate them into a whole.4. Improvement Growth: The need to feel continued improvement and growth as a person, not just improved results. Exploration: The need to move into unknown territory for discovery.5. Control Competence: The need to feel personally capable and competent. Influence: The need to influence others' opinions and actions.(Black J. S. and Gregersen H. B. 2002)

Fear Factor

Overcome By: Creating a common understanding that enables positive action. Providing appropriate / easily accessible information on risk evaluation and implementation. Providing both cultural and contractual changes to remove fear of liability and assigned blame Investigating unsuccessful projects to provide lessons for the future. Lessening constraints imposed by regulations, codes and standards that oppose innovative solutions (CRISP 2000).

Trust Factor

T/F?"Employees do not always believe what their leaders tell them unless they are educated to the economic realities of their business." (Schein E. H. 1999) p120

LeadershipT/F?"Culture and leadership are two sides of the same coin." (Schein E. H. 1997) p15

Correctly Define Your Unique Culture

T/F?"When we know what culture is, we know what needs to be changed for culture to change. Only once we appreciate its nature can we understand how it might be changed. When we know its role, we can comprehend its importance" (Williams A., Dobson P. et al. 1993) p11.

"If you are serious about managing culture in your organisation, the biggest danger you face is that you not fully appreciate the depth and power of culture." (Schein E. H. 1999) p185.


Iden

tify

Con

nect

ion

/ Lin

k / R

elat

ions

hip

betw

een

Fact

ors

or S

ub-fa

ctor

s

Dec

isio

n-M

akin

g Fa

ctor

s an

d Su

b-Fa

ctor

s


elationship betw

een Factors or Sub-factors

Appendices

- 289 -

D.5. ‘Leadership’ Dynamic

D.6. ‘Training and Education’ Dynamic

IP

Leadership vs ManagementCharactoristics

Leading Implementation ActionsDecision-Making Initiatives

Leadership Culture Changing LeadersCulture of Collaboration

Leadership Traps

5 - TRAINING & EDUCATION (SKILLS / KNOWLEDGE / EXPERIENCE)

ion

CULTURE

Action Points

Trainers are recommended to consider the following 'action points': Attempt to understand the organisation's culture and organisational attitudes to training evaluation; Recognise all levels of the organisation's culture in order to consider how positive attitudes can be fostere Determine measurable goals for changing attitudes to training in the organisation in relation to time; Utilise Forces of Resistance (Force-Field Model) to help analyse the extent of the problem, the task to be Adopt a proactive approach to the advancement of organisational-level training and evaluation by 'promot choose a suitable change strategy or strategies to promote these new organisational beliefs; involve a wide range of organisational participants in the implementation stage of the attempt to change a actively evaluate the results of this culture change attempt. (Lewis P. and Thornhill A. 1994)By Considering the following Effects: fear and stress of employees (old and young) having to learn an unfamiliar / automated process; and impact on their self-esteem and ability to succeed (threatened confidence) (Vickers M.H. 1999)

Benefits

Through cultural training programs, organisations and their members can focus on the concept of cultural change as a 'learning process' (Schein E. H. 1999).

T/F?: highly trained and motivated workers leading to more successful firms; better training will raise industry standards and improve employment prospects; a healthier and happier workforce; an improved image for the industry and attraction of more skilled people; research and development has long-term economic gains; an innovative environment that will stimulate and create more and better ideas; more flexible use of multi-skilled people; and finally a high-tech image delivering improved social benefits will make the construction industry more attractive a(Foresight 2000).

INNOVATIVE CHANGE

Tertiary education to develop and support the understanding of how to evaluate and implement innovative change and inThis provision is required both in undergraduate / postgraduate courses to create a more receptive and able cadre of construction professionals (including the creation of a more common understanding) as well as the role of providing specific research and consultancy support to companies or networks (CRISP 2000).

Training can be offered through, innovative synchronised and instructor-led training systems with video, audio and graphical presentations, allowing fuller learning participation from any location. It is predicted that higher quality online training and courseware (meeting the ever-broadening needs of industry learners and organisations) will become, and in many cases already is, a standard method of training, thereby altering the adult learning experience in future decades (Kilby T. 2001).

DECISION-MAKING FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS

Iden

tify

Con

nect

ion

/ Lin

k / R

elat

ions

hip

betw

een

Fact

ors

or S

ub-fa

ctor

s



Identify Connection / Link /

Relationship betw

een Factors or S

ub-factors

Appendices

- 290 -

Appendix E: Six Research Methods Considered

1 Exploratory

Conducted when a problem is not clearly defined; or to identify new

problems or issues. Due to its fundamental nature, this method often

concludes that a perceived problem does not actually exist. It’s

usually applied to help determine the most appropriate research

design, data collection method and selection of subject. Often relies

on secondary research (Section 4.3) by reviewing relevant literature /

data, or through qualitative approaches such as:

• informal discussions with consumers, employees, management or

competitors, etc

• formal approaches through in-depth interviews, surveys, focus

groups, case studies / pilot studies, etc

In this case the research results alone are usually insufficient for

decision-making, but can provide significant insight into a given

situation – that is to say, although the results provide certain

indications as to the why, how and when something occurs, they

usually fail to convincingly suggest, for example, how often or how

many

2 Constructive

Usually employed when a new solution theory, process, model,

software, or framework to a problem still needs to be developed.

Although this research method / approach demands a much lower

form of validation (as opposed to the empirical and exploratory-based

research types), findings and conclusions still have to be ‘objectively

argued and defined’ by undertaking, for example: analytical

comparisons or benchmark tests

3 Empirical

Predominantly utilised to test the feasibility of a solution (for example

a hypothesis). Basing its findings on accurately describing or testing

(directly and/or indirectly) certain observations or realities by using

experimental evidence. Also referred to as fundamental or pure

research, its primary objective is ‘…the advancement of knowledge

and the theoretical understanding of the relations among variables’

Appendices

- 291 -

4 Basic

It is an exploratory undertaking that is often driven by a researcher’s

curiosity, interest, or intuition (hypothesis) - suggesting that this

research method provides the foundation for further, sometimes

applied research.

5 Historical

6 Scientific

• Although certain unexpected outcomes can lead to a variety of

practical applications, this form of research is usually conducted

without any practical end in mind

• As there is no guarantee of short-term practical or commercial

gain, obtaining sufficient funding may prove difficult

• In line with the characteristics of an empirical research (above),

this method is said to refer to a body of techniques for

investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting

and integrating previous knowledge

• It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable

evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning - consisting of

collecting data through observation and experimentation; and then

formulating and testing various hypotheses

• Wassenaar and Oestreich (1977) confirms scientific researchers

‘…propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena’ and then

proceed ‘…to design experimental studies to [repeatedly] test

these hypotheses’ in order to predict dependable results.

• The process is objective to ensure a reduction in ‘biased

interpretations’ of results

• All related data and methodology used is fully documented,

archived and shared with others to allow ‘full disclosure’ and

careful scrutiny / verification of results

• Due to this form of research generally following a certain structural

process, it usually adheres to the following steps as part of a

formal research approach:

o Identify the research topic and define hypothesis;

o Provide conceptual and operational definitions;

o Gather and analyse relevant data;

• Test and revise hypothesis; and finally

• Conclude.

Appendices

- 292 -

Appendix F: Ten-step Process for Developing Survey Questionnaires

In conjunction with the Eleven-step Delphi Process discussed in Section 5.9, this

research also considered certain elements and activities from the following ten

sequential survey-related actions and questions presented by Wassenaar and

Oestreich (1977).

TEN STEPS ACTION DESCRIBED

1. Establish Survey Objectives and Define Population of Interest

To determine the objectives of the Delphi Survey Questionnaire this research

considered the following unknowns:

• What (problems or difficulties) gave rise to administering a survey?

• How would administering this survey help solve these problems or

difficulties?

• What type of information is sought?

• Who will benefit from this survey?

Defining the ‘population of interest’ is described as a must by Fellows and Liu

(2003, 28-32, 44, 91-97). Therefore, this research considered the following

factors:

• The group that will be investigated - panel of industry experts (Section

5.10);

• The geographic area or location of projects that will be targeted - Australian

construction industry organisations;

• What part of the building and construction industry will benefit from this

research – Organisations delivering innovative change; and

• Determining an industry expert’s background (occupation; size and type of

organisation; knowledge, experience; etc.)

2. Select Most Suitable Survey Distribution Method

Two of the most frequently used methods of distribution are mail and

telephone. The decision to employ the email (electronic mail) method as being

the most appropriate to distribute and collect survey data is based on the

advantages outweighing the disadvantages.

3. Develop Implementation Plan

As part of the Delphi Technique employed, and prior to implementing the final

Delphi Survey Questionnaire to the panel of industry experts, this research first

administered a draft copy of the survey instrument on a small portion of

industry members, research supervisors, editors and other researchers to

ensure the format, functionality and relevancy of its questions, statements, etc.

(factors) are satisfactory.


Appendices

- 293 -

TEN STEPS ACTION DESCRIBED

4. Determine Required Size

As highlighted in Step 1 – it was decided to administer the Delphi Survey

Questionnaire to a select group of construction industry experts – sourced

from various professional body and research member databases, including:

architects, builders, engineers, project managers, clients, research groups,

etc.

5. Develop Survey Instrument

In developing the Delphi Survey Questionnaire, two basic answer formats

were considered (Section 4.5):

• Structured responses (Quantitative): to a range of ’multiple-choice’ type

questions, statements, etc. (factors)

• Open-ended responses (Qualitative): blank spaces / fields for respondents

to fill in any additional suggestions, recommendations, etc.

6. Test Survey Instrument

As highlighted in Step 3 (above) and in The Eleven-step Delphi Process

(Section 5.9), the Delphi Survey Questionnaire was first ‘tested’ on a ‘sample

of respondents to help ensure its validity, relevancy, reliability, contents,

format, ease of implementation and use.

7. Administer Survey As recommended by Wassenaar and Oestreich (1977), the ‘subject matter’ of

the research (objective, hypothesis, definition of terms, etc.) was clearly

introduce and explain prior to distributing the Delphi Survey Questionnaire to

the panel of industry experts

8. Edit and Tabulate Survey Results

A three-step process was considered:

• On return, the Delphi Survey Questionnaires were firstly edited and

formatted to ensure they are usable for scoring, or discarded if incomplete.

• Secondly, responses to open-ended (qualitative) questions, statements,

etc. (factors) were reconfigured and appropriately categorised for

subsequent assessment (rating) by industry specialist

• Finally, all results were manually and electronically tabulated, analysed,

categorised, etc.

9. Test Significance and Validity Of Results

The significance and validity of Delphi Survey Questionnaire results were

tested and compared against the research hypothesis under the guidance and

direction of the industry experts involved

10. Report Survey Findings

As suggested by Dictionary.com (2009) - when reporting the final results of the

Delphi Survey Questionnaire to the industry experts, the following information

may be included:

• Purpose, scope, and / or brief statement of methodology

• Summary - highlights of Delphi Survey Questionnaire findings

• Information on how the Delphi Survey Questionnaire was conducted

• A copy of the Delphi Survey Questionnaires used

Appendices

- 294 -

Appendix G: Delphi Survey - Invitation Letter

Date: 15th June 2008

Address: ………………………………… ………………………………… ………………………………… Attention: ………………………………… [Industry Expert Panel Member] Dear……………………….., Mr Achi Weippert (student # N0246 1633 03) is currently at the final stages of completing his PhD in the Faculty of Built Environment and Engineering (School of Urban Development). As his Principal supervisor, I hereby invite you to participate in completing his Delphi Survey Questionnaire. Your valued input, experience and knowledge on the delivery and application of change within a construction industry organisation will be central in helping Achi Weippert identify and evaluate what dynamics are key components of a Conceptual Decision-making Framework (CDF) for the delivery of innovative change in organisations. Research Question: Achi Weippert provides the following overarching research question for his PhD survey questionnaire: ‘What decision-making dynamics are necessary when delivering innovative change within an organisation?’ As we are committed to a short turnaround timeframe (collecting and analysing survey responses), Achi Weippert will contact you within the next few days to (a) confirm your participation and (b) forward to you the relevant survey questionnaire for completion. Should you require any further clarification regarding the above, please do not hesitate in contacting my office directly. Sincerely, (Signature not provided in this copy) Prof Stephen Kajewski Head, School of Urban Development Director, QUT Project Management Academy Faculty of Built Environment & Engineering Queensland University of Technology GPO Box 2434, Brisbane, Queensland, 4001, Australia e: [email protected]

Appendices

- 295 -

Appendix H: Delphi Survey Pack (Round One)

1st August 2008

DELPHI SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND

To follow is a brief introduction and background information pertaining to the

completion of the attached Delphi Survey Questionnaire (Round One).

Introduction

On behalf of the Queensland University of Technology (QUT) and myself (Achi

Weippert), I thank you for accepting my invitation to be part of this research, which

stems from various state-of-the-art building and civil ‘innovative change related’

research projects and initiatives, including:

(a) Developing; trialling; and evaluating various business, technology and process tools

and systems on building and civil construction case study projects, in an attempt to

enhance collaborative initiatives and construction efficiencies between members of a

geographically dispersed project consortium.

(b) Identifying ways to help overcome industry cultural barriers towards change; modify

traditional work habits; improve current technical challenges; and encourage

organisations and key stakeholders in the uptake of innovative change, and promote

a knowledge sharing and culture change philosophy.

Appendices

- 296 -

DELPHI SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE Purpose & Research Question

The Delphi Survey Questionnaire questions, statements, etc. (factors) are designed to

provide industry-expert confirmation on the inclusion (or exclusion) of six dynamics –

change, innovation, implementation, culture, leadership, training and education –

in terms of their relevancy in being key components of a Conceptual Decision-making Framework (CDF) for the delivery of innovative change in organisations.

Furthermore the outcomes of the attached Delphi Survey Questionnaire - based on

your valued input, experience and knowledge in the delivery and application of new /

innovative change within a organisation - will underpin future research undertakings in

developing a construction industry-specific Innovative Change Delivery Process

(ICDP).

In an attempt to meet the above research objectives, Achi Weippert provides the

following overarching research question:

‘What additional decision-making dynamics are necessary when delivering innovative

change within an organisation?’

Confidentiality and Ethical Clearance

The Delphi Survey Questionnaire meets the ‘ethics requirements’ of QUT’s Office of

Research (ethics approval number 0800000883). All personal information and data

obtained from the Delphi Survey Questionnaire will remain STRICTLY

CONFIDENTIAL - required purely for: Statistical purposes; and so that the Author may

be able to contact you, should further clarification of any of your responses be required.

Appendices

- 297 -

Using the Delphi Technique

Today’s competitive arena requires construction industry organisations to continually

investigate, apply and utilise new and innovative tools, thereby forcing them to undergo

continuous change. The ‘oracle’ of a Delphic Study is not a new research concept or

methodology and is used by many of today’s leading international organisations and

research institutions as a practical and effective method of responding to expert

questions, statements, etc. (factors) and determining / clarifying various value-adding

‘unknowns’. The utilisation of the Delphi process is deemed appropriate for this research

for the following reasons:

(a) Better results (of unbiased responses) will be achieved by engaging a group of industry recognised and respected experts with diverse backgrounds,

experiences, and opinions in delivering innovative change within the construction

industry arena

(b) The research question is ‘emotionally-charged’ (c) The experts responses (ratings) are mostly opinion-based (Andrews C.G. and

Allen J.M. 2002)

Referring to the table below, over the next four to eight weeks, a series of two Delphi

Survey Questionnaires will be sent CONFIDENTIALLY to approximately ten building and

civil construction experts who have agreed to participate in this research. This means:

the sources and responses remain completely independent and separate; and the

identity of each of the experts is known only to the Author. When disturbing research

findings and compiling the thesis, each participant will be represented by a number or

code only.

Appendices

- 298 -

STEP ACTION DEFINED STATUS

1 AUTHOR

i. Prepare the first survey

ii. To distribute first survey (independent and separate) to the panel of

experts

• Via mail, fax and / or computerised systems (email, internet, etc)

ROUND ONE

COMPLETE

EXPERT

i. To complete the first survey anonymously and independently

ii. To use a scoring system (weighting, ranking, etc) provided

iii. Feedback can be both positive and negative, thereby amplifying


iv. To return survey via mail, fax and / or computerised systems (email,

internet, etc)

ROUND ONE

CURRENT SURVEY

3-5 AUTHOR

i. Analysis of the first round responses and supporting comments

• The results of the first survey are analysed, tabulated and

transcribed

ii. Prepare the second round survey, showing:

• First round statistical results

• First round supporting comments

• Highlight and include any differences, inconsistencies and

suggestions, etc (if provided)

iii. Distribute the second round survey (independent and separate) to the

panel of experts


ROUND ONE

NEXT

6 EXPERT

i. To complete the second survey anonymously and independently





etc)

ROUND TWO

7 AUTHOR

i. Analysis of the second round responses and supporting comments,


• The results of the second survey are analysed, tabulated and

transcribed at a central location

ROUND TWO

8 AUTHOR

& EXPERT

i. Repeat steps 4 to 7 until stability in the results is achieved

• The submission of each new round (based on reiterations of the

survey process) is repeated until consensus is attained among

participants

• Each round of results invariably triggers new weighting, ranking,

resolutions, estimates, predictions, probabilities etc

• Approximately two to four cycles of the above Delphi process

generally result in a consensus among the participants

POSSIBLE STAGE(S)

9 AUTHOR i. Prepare a report to present the conclusions of the exercise

• Distribute copy of report to principle supervisor, research

specialists and industry experts

FINAL STAGE

2

WE A

RE H

ERE

Appendices

- 299 -

Survey Instructions: Round One

Kindly complete each of the Delphi Survey Questionnaire’s following Sections:

Background (You & Your Organisation)

1. Change 2. Innovation 3. Implementation 4. Culture 5. Leadership 6. Training & Education 7. Additional Dynamic(s) (Note: Section 7 is Optional)

Kindly refer to the Definition of Terms (below) used within the Delphi Survey

Questionnaire and indicate your response to each ‘Factor’ by simply indicating your preferred ‘rating’ for each - by inserting a against the appropriate response:

1 = Not Relevant 2 = Little Relevance 3 = Quite Relevant 4 = Very Relevant 5 = Most Relevant

The attached Round One Delphi Survey Questionnaire should take approximately

fifteen to twenty minutes to complete.

Definition of Terms

Kindly refer to the following definitions of terms used within the Delphi Survey

Questionnaire:

NOTE: The AIM of collecting and summarising the various responses from survey rounds, is for all

members of this panel of experts to reach a CONSENSUS or STABILITY in the weight of the various

dynamics and associated factors provided in the Delphi Survey Questionnaire.

Appendices

- 300 -

Definition of Terms

Change ‘To make the form, nature, content, future course, etc., of (something) different from what it is or from what it would be if left alone… to become different in essence…

losing one’s or its original nature...’ Dictionary.com (2008b)

Culture Culture is defined as a collection of common held experiences, perceptions, values, attitudes, beliefs, morals, and ‘ways of thinking’ that both ‘represent’ and ‘influence’

the way ‘things are collectively done’ by members within an organisation, group, or team environment

Dynamic ‘An efficient incentive…a basic or interactive force… especially one that motivates, affects development or stability, etc. Dictionary.com (2008c)

Expert ‘An experienced person who has special skill or knowledge in some particular field, area or subject’ Dictionary.com (2008e)

An expert is defined as being an experienced individual or group skilled and/or knowledgeable in the process of delivering change within the construction industry arena

Implementation ‘To fulfil… to perform… to carry out… to put into effect, etc... according to or by means of a definite plan or procedure’ Skyrme (1998)

Initiative An Initiative is defined as a plan; proposal; idea; scheme; program; project; etc.

Innovation ‘The creation of new knowledge and turning ideas into valuable products and services….developing and implementing a new idea in an applied setting…the effective

generation and implementation of a new idea, which enhances overall organisational performance…the process whereby new and improved products, processes,

materials and services are developed and transferred to a market where they are appropriate’ RICS and Salford University (2007, 9-14), RICS and Salford University

(2007, 3), White and Bruton (2007, 16-165, 243-57, 393) and Dictionary.com (2008f)

Innovation is defined as follows: The generation and application of new knowledge; an original idea; product; process; material; or service that enhances overall

performances..

Innovative Change

Innovative Change is defined as: The intentional (controlled / deliberate) development or unintentional (uncontrolled / natural) progression of an idea, knowledge, product,

process, system, service or course of action that appropriately enhances and transforms overall performances and efficiencies within a practical environment – an

improved way of doing something better.

Interdependent ‘Mutually dependent…reliant on one another’ AllWords.com (2008) and Dictionary.com (2008g)

Appendices

- 301 -

Definition of Terms

Key ’A vital, crucial element … serving as an essential component [of something]… of vital importance’ Robbins (1998, 138-86, 347, 595-98, 601-46). To be referred to as a

‘key’ component, element, factor, dynamic, etc., is based on the relevancy rating it receives – that is, by referring to a scale of 1 (no relevancy) to 5 (most relevant), should

any of the above receive a relevancy rate of between 3 and 5 (somewhat to most relevant), then it is considered to be a ‘key’ component of a CDF for delivering innovative


Leadership ‘The ability to influence a group toward the achievement of common goals and objectives…the art of getting things done through others’ White and Bruton (2007, 16-165,

243-57, 393) and Mirriam-Webster's Online Dictionary (2008)

Learning Culture

Learning Culture is defined as follows: Where the collective disciplines and individual learning qualities and capabilities of employees are encouraged to be practiced in an

environment that promotes enhanced levels of thinking, a commitment to continuous discovery, a way of perceiving issues, support, motivation and the use of shared

views

Organisation ‘An administrative and functional structure (as a business) [including] the personnel of such a structure’ Dictionary.com (2008j) or ’a group of people who work together’

Dictionary.com (2008n) – including project teams; action or task groups; etc.

Team ’A number of persons associated in some joint action… a group organised to work together… a cooperative unit’ Dictionary.com (2008d)

Factor ’One that actively contributes to an accomplishment, result, or process…a fundamental, essential, or irreducible constituent of a composite entity / [dynamic]’ Gupta and

Thomas (2001)

Sub-Culture Sub-Culture is defined as clusters or groups of people naturally developed and / or formed through regular interaction within their common work and / or social

environment…based on shared understandings and interpretations of common events and activities

Training / Education

‘Unlocking and developing an individual employee’s creativity and skills (to do things differently through newly attained knowledge and experience)...and to be able to

effectively apply and communicate these new skill-sets [new way of doing things] within their work environment’ Linowes J.G. (1999), Swe and Kleiner (1998) and

Dictionary.com (2009)

Appendices

- 302 -

Survey Return Options

Once complete, kindly SAVE your responses and return the attached Round One Delphi

Survey Questionnaire to the Author by 1st September 2008 – by using one of the

following return options…:

(a) Attach completed survey document to an email message and send it to

[email protected] for analysis; OR

(b) Print completed survey and fax it to (07) 3890 2457 for analysis; OR

(c) Print completed survey document and post it to 61 Wyandra Crescent Murarrie, 4172

for analysis; OR

(d) Contact the Author (Achi Weippert) on 0413 035 882 to have your completed survey

collected from your office.

Should you require any further assistance or clarification, please do not hesitate in contacting me. Sincerely,

Achi Weippert (PhD Candidate) Faculty of Built Environment and Engineering School of Urban Development Queensland University of Technology (QUT) Email: [email protected] Mobile: 0413 035 882 Mail: 61 Wyandra Crescent, Murarrie, Brisbane, 4172

Appendices

- 303 -

DELPHI SURVEY QUESTIONNNAIRE

ROUND ONE

‘What decision-making dynamics are necessary when delivering innovative change within an

organisation?’

Achi Weippert

PhD Candidate

# N0246 1633 03

1st August 2008

Appendices

- 304 -

BACKGROUND: YOU & YOUR ORGANISATION (Page 1 of 2)

1) Contact Details (STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL)

Your Name

Company Name

Post Code

Work Phone

E-mail

Web Address

FOR THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: PLEASE INSERT A AGAINST THE APPROPRIATE RESPONSE

2) What is the highest level of education that you have completed?

Some High School Or Less

High School Graduate

Some College/TAFE

Certificate Qualification

Diploma

Bachelor Degree

Post-Graduate Qualification 3) What is the title of your current position?

4) How long have you been working in your present position?

Years

5) Do you have any experience in implementing a change initiative within your work environment?

YES

NO If you answered NO kindly proceed to Q7

6) If you answered YES to the above question: kindly provide a brief description of your experiences…

Appendices

- 305 -

BACKGROUND: YOU & YOUR ORGANISATION (Page 2 of 2)

FOR THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: PLEASE INSERT A AGAINST THE APPROPRIATE RESPONSE

7) What is your organisation's size (employees)?

1-10 100-500

10-50 500-1000

50-100 More than 1000

8) Does your organisation Mainly Work…?

Local (Regional)

Interstate

International

9) Is your organisation Private or Public driven?

Private (e.g.: PTY LTD)

Public / Government (i.e.: Local / State / Federal)

10) What is your company's main classification?

Client

Contractor

Sub-contractor

Consultant

Specialist

Supplier

Research

Academic

11) What is your company's average annual turnover?

Less than $500,000

$500,00 - $1M

$1M - $5M

$5M - $10M

$10M - $20M

$20M - $50M

$50M - $100M

More than $100M

Don’t know?

12) Which of the following industry sector(s) does your company work in?

Construction: Non building (civil, electrical, hydraulic, mechanical, etc)

Construction: Building (commercial; industrial)

Construction: Building (residential)

Other

(If you chose Other: kindly specify below:

(e.g.: Mining, Motor, Aviation, Agriculture,

Business, Banking, …etc)

Appendices

- 306 -

1. CHANGE (Page 1 of 2)

KINDLY CHOOSE YOUR WEIGHTING FOR EACH CHANGE FACTOR BY

INSERTING A INTO THE APPROPRIATE BOX

ROUND ONE

CH

AN

GE

FAC

TOR

S

INQUEST #1:

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LEADERS WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR

IMPLEMENTING INNOVATION-DRIVEN CHANGE INITIATIVES (‘NEW WAY OF

DOING THINGS’) WITHIN AN ORGANISATION OR PROJECT TEAM ENVIRONMENT…ARE TO TAKE INTO

ACCOUNT THE FOLLOWING FACTORS AS PART OF THEIR DECISION-MAKING

PROCESS …

NO

T R

elev

ant

LITT

LE R

elev

ance

QU

ITE

Rel

evan

t

VER

Y R

elev

ant

MO

ST R

elev

ant

1 2 3 4 5 The following are key factors in emphasising / reinforcing the 'need' to undergo change…

(a) … Globalisation of the economy (offering increased business opportunities)?

(b) … Increased competition? (Fuelling the need to 'survive')?

(c) … Technological advancement? (In areas such as software, hardware, e-Systems, mobile computing, handheld products, manufacturing, installation/erecting, etc)?

(d) … Labour shortages? (Causing, for example the need to adopt advanced resource and knowledge management initiatives)?

i. NEED FOR CHANGE

(e) … Increased client expectations? (In using, for example new / innovative / state-of-the-art processes, systems, products, methods, materials, etc.)?

ii. CHANGE DRIVERS

Identifying and then determining ways to incorporate the Key factors that can help drive / convince members to readily adopt the implementation and application process?

iii. CHANGE BARRIERS

Identifying and then determining ways to overcome various forms of resistance that challenges members to readily adopt and adapt to the implementation and application process?

iv. OVERCOMING CHALLENGES

Having ready access to relevant, trialled and tested actions and approaches to help members overcome their inherent fear and resisting nature towards the implementation and application process?

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LEADERS WHO ARE

RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING INNOVATIVE CHANGE WITHIN AN

ORGANISATION ARE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE FOLLOWING CHANGE FACTORS - AS PART OF

THEIR DECISION-MAKING PROCESS …

Appendices

- 307 -


KINDLY CHOOSE YOUR WEIGHTING FOR EACH CHANGE FACTOR BY


ROUND ONE

CH

AN

GE

FAC

TOR

S INQUEST #1: (cont.)

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LEADERS WHO

ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR IMPLEMENTING INNOVATION-DRIVEN CHANGE INITIATIVES (‘NEW WAY OF DOING THINGS’) WITHIN AN

ORGANISATION OR PROJECT TEAM ENVIRONMENT…ARE TO TAKE INTO


PROCESS …

NO

T R

elev

ant

LITT

LE R

elev

ance

QU

ITE

Rel

evan

t

VER

Y R

elev

ant

MO

ST R

elev

ant

1 2 3 4 5

Having ready access to the most relevant, trialled and tested (best practice) implementation and application process / strategy that is…

(a) … Timely (undertaken at a suitable / preferred point in time)?

(b) … Cost effective (efficient use of resources)?

i. COST vs. TIMING vs. DIFFICULTY

(c) … Less ‘difficult’ / user friendly (greater chance of success / sustainability)?

ii. METHODS MODELS / FRAMEWORKS

Having ready access to relevant, trialled and tested (best practice) change models, methods / frameworks to help ensure a successful and sustainable implementation and application process?

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LEADERS

WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING INNOVATIVE CHANGE WITHIN AN ORGANISATION ARE TO

TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE FOLLOWING CHANGE FACTORS - AS PART OF THEIR

DECISION-MAKING PROCESS …

Appendices

- 308 -

2. INNOVATION (Page 1 of 1)

KINDLY CHOOSE YOUR WEIGHTING FOR EACH

INNOVATION FACTOR BY


ROUND ONE

INN

OVA

TIO

N

FAC

TOR

S

INQUEST # 2:

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LEADERS WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR IMPLEMENTING

INNOVATION-DRIVEN CHANGE INITIATIVES (‘NEW WAY OF DOING THINGS’) WITHIN AN

ORGANISATION OR PROJECT TEAM ENVIRONMENT…ARE TO TAKE INTO


PROCESS …

NO

T R

elev

ant

LITT

LE R

elev

ance

QU

ITE

Rel

evan

t

VER

Y R

elev

ant

MO

ST R

elev

ant

1 2 3 4 5 i. STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT

Having ready access to relevant, trialled and tested (best practice) strategic approaches, actions / methods to help better manage / control / govern / lead / champion a newly proposed innovation-driven change initiative?

ii. INNOVATION TYPES

Determining the most appropriate ‘type’ of innovation to pursue (including being familiar of all associated factors, potential business / strategic benefits, profitability aspects, risks, etc)?

iii. INNOVATIVE CAPABILITIES VS. INNOVATIVE NEED

Determining the efficiency and responsiveness of an organisation’s or project team's innovative capabilities (i.e.: ability to recognise, create and apply innovative initiatives) to help verify the overall need to be more innovative or not?

iv. INNOVATION DRIVERS

Identifying and then determining ways to incorporate the key factors that help drive / convince members to accelerate and revitalise their desire in becoming more innovative?

v. INNOVATION CHALLENGES / BARRIERS

Identifying and then determining ways to overcome key concerns that tend to challenge innovation related activities / initiatives?


DELIVERING INNOVATIVE CHANGE WITHIN AN ORGANISATION ARE TO TAKE

INTO ACCOUNT THE FOLLOWING INNOVATION FACTORS - AS PART OF


Appendices

- 309 -

3. IMPLEMENTATION (Page 1 of 1)


IMPLEMENTATION FACTOR BY INSERTING A

INTO THE APPROPRIATE BOX

ROUND ONE

IMPL

EMEN

TATI

ON

FA

CTO

RS

INQUEST # 3:





PROCESS …

NO

T R

elev

ant

LITT

LE R

elev

ance

QU

ITE

Rel

evan

t

VER

Y R

elev

ant

MO

ST R

elev

ant

1 2 3 4 5 i. BUSINESS GOALS / OBJECTIVES

Ensuring that the implementation / application process fulfils (meets) at least one or a combination key / pre- determined business / strategic / project goals and objectives?

Having ready access to relevant, trialled and tested (best practice) implementation strategies / methods / models / frameworks that best serve the needs of… (a) … The innovation-driven change solution ‘new way of doing things’ itself?

ii. STRATEGIES / METHODS / MODELS / FRAMEWORKS

(b) … The organisation or project team work / social environment - i.e.: members, end-users and other stakeholders affected by the implementation / application process?

Ensuring the implementation and application process incorporates the following three actions…: (a) … Timing: determining a suitable point in time for an implementation / application process to get underway?

(b) … Prioritisation: identifying what takes precedence pre, during and after the implementation / application process?

iii. TIMING / PRIORITISATION / DELEGATION

(c) … Delegation: determining who does what (resource management) pre, during and after the implementation / application process?

iv. BARRIERS / CHALLENGES

Determining ways to overcome key concerns / contributing factors that tend to challenge the implementation / application process?

v. SUCCESS FACTORS

Determining ways to Incorporate critical success factors that will help ensure a sustainable implementation / application process?

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

LEADERS WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING INNOVATIVE

CHANGE WITHIN AN ORGANISATION ARE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE

FOLLOWING IMPLEMENTATION FACTORS - AS PART OF THEIR DECISION-MAKING PROCESS

Appendices

- 310 -

4. CULTURE (Page 1 of 2)

KINDLY CHOOSE YOUR WEIGHTING FOR EACH CULTURE FACTOR BY


ROUND ONE

CU

LTU

RE

FAC

TOR

S

INQUEST # 4:



ORGANISATION OR PROJECT TEAM ENVIRONMENT…ARE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE FOLLOWING FACTORS AS PART OF THEIR


NO

T R

elev

ant

LITT

LE R

elev

ance

QU

ITE

Rel

evan

t

VER

Y R

elev

ant

MO

ST R

elev

ant

1 2 3 4 5 Convincing members to readily change their current / traditional ways of ‘doing things’ (culture) in order to adopt a newer, more efficient or innovative way of ‘doing the same thing’ is challenging - due to ‘culture’ being …: (a) … One of the most highly influential resources in determining the sustainability (success or failure) of an implementation and application process?

(b) … One of the most difficult and complex dynamics to identify with / define / understand?

i. CULTURE CHANGE PHILOSOPHY

(c) … One of the most difficult and complex dynamics to predict / control / manage?

Increased Levels of success in adopting a sustainable change in culture can be achieved by construction industry leaders…:

(a) … Reinforcing a relationship of ‘trust’ between co-workers, senior management, employees, and other internal / external stakeholders?

(b) … Improving office design / layout and / or working environments / conditions (e.g.: open vs. closed office layout, upgrade onsite facilities & safety, etc)?

(c) … Introducing a voluntary job or task rotation policy (e.g.: flexible rosters, five-day working week policy, etc)?

(d) … Offering / promoting pragmatic reward and effective incentive packages?

ii. SUCCESS FACTORS

(e) … Increasing employee / stakeholder participation in the decision making process of implementing innovation-driven change initiatives (‘new way of doing things’) in existing / future work environments?

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LEADERS WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING

INNOVATIVE CHANGE WITHIN AN ORGANISATION ARE TO TAKE INTO

ACCOUNT THE FOLLOWING CULTURE FACTORS - AS PART OF THEIR DECISION-

MAKING PROCESS …

Appendices

- 311 -


KINDLY CHOOSE YOUR WEIGHTING FOR EACH CULTURE FACTOR BY


ROUND ONE

CU

LTU

RE

FAC

TOR

S

INQUEST # 4: (cont.)

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LEADERS WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR IMPLEMENTING INNOVATION-

DRIVEN CHANGE INITIATIVES (‘NEW WAY OF DOING THINGS’) WITHIN AN ORGANISATION OR PROJECT

TEAM ENVIRONMENT…ARE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE FOLLOWING FACTORS AS PART OF


NO

T R

elev

ant

LITT

LE R

elev

ance

QU

ITE

Rel

evan

t

VER

Y R

elev

ant

MO

ST R

elev

ant

1 2 3 4 5 i. CLASSIFICATION / FEATURE / CHARACT. / QUALITY / TYPE /

Having ready access to relevant, trialled and tested (best practice) methods on how to analyse the unique and highly influential cultural features, characteristics (perceptions, behaviour, values, etc.), qualities, types and classifications (strengths, weaknesses, etc.) of an organisation, group or team? (i.e.: to help determine the most efficient / effective way to change / adapt / align traditional work / social habits to a newly proposed (innovation-driven) initiative or new / alternate way of ‘doing things’ )

ii. NEED FOR CULTURE CHANGE

To ensure the successful and sustainable implementation / application of a new or alternate ‘way of doing something’ (change) will require the above features, characteristics, qualities, types and classifications of an existing culture (work and social undertakings of employees) to change? (i.e.: better aligning themselves to the 'new way of doing things')

iii. WORK-LIFE BALANCE

Ensuring that members of an organisation, group, or team strongly align with a suitable, sustainable and efficient ‘work-life balance’ strategy? (i.e.: one that satisfies both employee and family needs and expectations – by considering e.g.: flexible hours worked, health and well-being (such as supply of fresh fruit in the workplace, health checks, and a greater emphasis on exercise), social gatherings (family fun days), adventure / team-building activities, etc.)

iv. SUB-CULTURES

Having ready access to relevant, trialled and tested (best practice) methods on how to analyse the uniquely inherent, varying and often contradicting sub-cultures of an organisation or project team? (i.e.: to help determine the most efficient / effective way to change / adapt / align traditional work / social habits to a newly proposed (innovation-driven) initiative or new / alternate way of ‘doing things’ )

v. METHODS / MODELS / FRAMEWORKS

Having ready access to relevant, trialled and tested (best practice) cultural ‘alignment’ / change models, methods and frameworks? (i.e.: to help ensure implementation / application success and sustainability)


ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING INNOVATIVE CHANGE WITHIN AN

ORGANISATION ARE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE FOLLOWING CULTURE FACTORS - AS

PART OF THEIR DECISION-MAKING PROCESS…

Appendices

- 312 -

5. LEADERSHIP (Page 1 of 2)

KINDLY CHOOSE YOUR WEIGHTING

FOR EACH LEADERSHIP FACTOR

BY INSERTING A INTO THE

APPROPRIATE BOX

ROUND ONE

LEA

DER

SHIP

FA

CTO

RS

INQUEST # 5:





NO

T R

elev

ant

LITT

LE R

elev

ance

QU

ITE

Rel

evan

t

VER

Y R

elev

ant

MO

ST R

elev

ant

1 2 3 4 5 i. LEADER vs. MANAGER

Realise that ‘…NOT all leaders are managers, NOR are managers all leaders’?

Ensuring that a leader / champion's 'human intervention' capabilities / experience include…: (a) … An enhanced level of both personal and professional communication skill sets? (b) … Being able to facilitate a positive environment of mutual assurance and success? (c) … The ability of Setting achievable business goals and objectives?

ii. HUMAN INTERVENTION

(d) … Recognising personal (employee) and other (non-human) resource capabilities / limitations? Considering the introduction of new (external) leaders to champion employees through the implementation / application process due to them potentially contributing…: (a) … Fresh / enhanced / valuable ‘never tried before’ leadership skill sets (communication, business, etc.)?

(b) … Tried and tested recipes for success (innovative ideas, processes, approaches etc.)?

iii. NEW VS. OLD LEADERS / CHAMPIONS

(c) … Clearer (unbiased / realistic) visions / goals / objectives for the future?

iv. TRUST & COLLABORATION

Ensure leaders / champions encourage employees to continuously promote a sustainable 'culture’ of trust and collaboration (pre, during and beyond) the implementation / application process?

v. LEADERSHIP TRAPS

Ensure leaders / champions have ready access to past leadership ‘traps' / hints (do’s and don’ts) experienced by acknowledged leaders / champions from both construction and other industry sectors?


ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING INNOVATIVE CHANGE WITHIN AN

ORGANISATION ARE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE FOLLOWING LEADERSHIP FACTORS - AS

PART OF THEIR DECISION-MAKING PROCESS…

Appendices

- 313 -



LEADERSHIP FACTOR BY


ROUND ONE

LEA

DER

SHIP

FA

CTO

RS






NO

T R

elev

ant

LITT

LE R

elev

ance

QU

ITE

Rel

evan

t

VER

Y R

elev

ant

MO

ST R

elev

ant

1 2 3 4 5 i. REGULAR REVIEWS

Ensuring leaders / champions Regularly and continuously (pre, during and beyond) review and test the implementation / application process?

ii. MINIMISE RESISTANCE

Ensuring leaders / champions have ready access to and incorporate relevant, tried and tested (best practice) 'approaches' that can reduce organisational or team member resistance towards the implementation of an innovation-driven change initiative?

iii. METHODS / MODELS / FRAMEWORKS

Ensuring leaders / champions have ready access to and incorporate relevant, tried and tested (best practice) leadership models, methods, action lists, and frameworks to help ensure a successful implementation / application process?


INNOVATIVE CHANGE WITHIN AN ORGANISATION ARE TO TAKE INTO

ACCOUNT THE FOLLOWING LEADERSHIP FACTORS - AS PART OF THEIR DECISION-

MAKING PROCESS …

Appendices

- 314 -

6. TRAINING & EDUCATION (Page 1 of 2)


TRAINING & EDUCATION FACTOR BY INSERTING

A INTO THE APPROPRIATE BOX

ROUND ONE

TRA

ININ

G &

ED

UC

ATI

ON

FA

CTO

RS

INQUEST # 6:





NO

T R

elev

ant

LITT

LE R

elev

ance

QU

ITE

Rel

evan

t

VER

Y R

elev

ant

MO

ST R

elev

ant

1 2 3 4 5 Ensuring trainers and educators offer and promote effective reward and learning incentive packages that encourages…:

(a) … Employees to continue training, learning and developing their individual skill-sets?

(b) … Increased productivity levels of employees?

i. LEARNING INCENTIVES

(c) … Employees to voluntarily create, share, and apply their newly attained knowledge amongst other co-workers; stakeholders; and work environments?

ii. DELIVERY

Ensuring trainers and educators have ready access to, and have the required skill-sets to employ the latest training and education delivery tools (models, frameworks, action-points, ‘disciplines’, etc)? (e.g.: utilising synchronised and instructor-led training systems / programs with innovative and user-friendly video, audio and graphical presentation for geographically dispersed applications, etc.)

iii. BENEFITS

Ensuring trainers and educators recognise and continuously promote the key benefits that can be gained through improved training and education?

iv. GOOD INVESTMENT?

Investing in the development (training / educating) of employees and project team members is a logical, worthwhile and essential endeavour?


INNOVATIVE CHANGE WITHIN AN ORGANISATION ARE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE FOLLOWING TRAINING AND EDUCATION

FACTORS - AS PART OF THEIR DECISION-MAKING PROCESS…

Appendices

- 315 -


THE NEXT (FINAL) SECTION 7 IS OPTIONAL


TRAINING & EDUCATION FACTOR BY INSERTING A


ROUND ONE

TRA

ININ

G &

ED

UC

ATI

ON

FA

CTO

RS






PROCESS …

NO

T R

elev

ant

LITT

LE R

elev

ance

QU

ITE

Rel

evan

t

VER

Y R

elev

ant

MO

ST R

elev

ant

1 2 3 4 5 The best way for trainers and educators to improve long-term efficiencies and enhance overall productivity levels of employees (through the effective utilisation of a newly proposed innovation-driven change initiative or new way of ‘doing things’) is to…:

(a) …Unlock and develop an individual employee’s creativity and skills?

i. ENHANCED EFFICIENCY / PRODUCTIVITY

(b) …Provide employees with a suitable and professional learning / training environment / platform that enable newly acquired skill-sets to be effectively disseminated, communicated and applied within current and future work environments?

ii. UNTRAINED / UNEDUCATED

Ensuring key employees and / or project team members are NOT left uneducated or untrained on how to effectively utilise a newly proposed innovation-driven change initiative or new way of ‘doing things’? (i.e.: to help ensure members of an organisation and / or project team perform to their full / required potential)


DELIVERING INNOVATIVE CHANGE WITHIN AN ORGANISATION ARE TO

TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE FOLLOWING TRAINING AND EDUCATION FACTORS - AS PART OF THEIR DECISION-MAKING

PROCESS …

Appendices

- 316 -

7. ADDITIONAL DYNAMIC(S) (OPTIONAL) Kindly identify any Additional dynamic(s) and associated factors you believe are most relevant when considering the sustainable delivery of Innovative Change within

construction industry organisations:

END of Delphi Survey Questionnaire (Round ONE)

(Kindly save and return your responses to the Author - as outlined at the beginning of the survey)

THANK YOU

ADDITIONAL KEY AND INTERDEPENDENT DECISION-MAKING DYNAMIC - # 7 Name Brief Description

(7)…

Factor (s) Associated To The Dynamic You Proposed Above

Factor (s) Brief Description

(a)

(b)

ADDITIONAL KEY AND INTERDEPENDENT DECISION-MAKING DYNAMIC - # 8 NAME Brief Description

(8)…



(a)

(b)

ADDITIONAL KEY AND INTERDEPENDENT DECISION-MAKING DYNAMIC - # 9 NAME Brief Description

(9)…



(c)

Appendices

- 317 -

Appendix I: Delphi Survey Pack (Round Two)


Appendices

- 318 -

1st October 2008

DELPHI SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE – ROUND TWO

On behalf of the Queensland University of Technology (QUT) and myself (Achi

Weippert), I thank you for accepting my invitation to continue being part of the second

round of this research. For your convenience, to follow is a brief reiteration of the Delphi

research methodology and background information pertaining to the completion of the

attached Delphi Survey Questionnaire (Round Two).

The Delphi Research Methodology

As stated in round one, the ‘oracle’ of a Delphic Study is not a new research concept or

methodology and is used by many of today’s leading international organisations and

research institutions as a practical and effective method of answering expert questions

and determining / clarifying various value-adding ‘unknowns’. The utilisation of the

Delphi process is deemed appropriate for this research for the following reasons:

(a) Better results (of unbiased responses) will be achieved by engaging a group of industry recognised and respected experts with diverse backgrounds,

experiences, and opinions in delivering innovative change within the construction

industry arena

(b) The research question is ‘emotionally-charged’ (c) The experts responses (ratings) are mostly opinion-based (Andrews C.G. and

Allen J.M. 2002)

Referring to the table below, you have now received, completed and returned the First

Round of the Delphi Survey Questionnaire. All your Round One responses have

CONFIDENTIALLY been entered into a database. These were then analysed and

summarised in preparation of the attached ROUND TWO Delphi Survey Questionnaire

instrument. The sources and responses are completely independent and separate and

the identity of each of the experts is known only to the Author – that is, when disturbing

research findings and compiling the thesis, each participant will be represented by a

number or code only.

Appendices

- 319 -

STEP ACTION DEFINED STATUS

1 AUTHOR

i. Prepare the first survey

ii. To distribute first survey (independent and separate) to the panel of

experts


ROUND ONE

COMPLETE

2 EXPERT

i. To complete the first survey anonymously and independently





etc)

ROUND ONE

COMPLETE

3-5 AUTHOR

i. Analysis of the first round responses and supporting comments

• The results of the first survey are analysed, tabulated and

transcribed

ii. Prepare the second round survey, showing:

• First round statistical results

• First round supporting comments

• Highlight and include any differences, inconsistencies and

suggestions, etc Distribute the second round survey (independent and

separate) to the panel


ROUND ONE

COMPLETE

EXPERT

i. To complete the second survey anonymously and independently





internet, etc)

ROUND TWO

CURRENT

SURVEY

7 AUTHOR

i. Analysis of the second round responses and supporting comments,


• The results of the second survey are analysed, tabulated and

transcribed at a central location

ROUND TWO

(NEXT)

8 AUTHOR

& EXPERT

i. Repeat steps 4 to 7 until stability in the results is achieved

• The submission of each new round (based on reiterations of the

survey process) is repeated until consensus is attained among participants

• Each round of results invariably triggers new weighting, ranking,

resolutions, estimates, predictions, probabilities etc

• Approximately two to four cycles of the above Delphi process

generally result in a consensus among the participants

POSSIBLE STAGE(S)

9 AUTHOR i. Prepare a report to present the conclusions of the exercise

• Distribute copy of report to principle supervisor, research specialists

and industry experts

FINAL STAGE

6

WE A

RE H

ERE

Appendices

- 320 -

Confidentiality and Ethical Clearance The Delphi Survey Questionnaire (Round Two) meets the ‘ethics requirements’ of QUT Office

of Research (ethics approval number 0800000883). All personal information and data obtained

from the Delphi Survey Questionnaire will remain STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL - required purely

for statistical purposes; and so that the Author may be able to contact you, should further

clarification of any of your responses be required.

Instructions: Round Two

Kindly complete each of the Delphi Survey Questionnaire’s following Sections:

Background (You & Your Organisation) - Already provided in Round One

1. Change 2. Innovation 3. Implementation 4. Culture 5. Leadership 6. Training & Education 7. Additional dynamic(s) - Sections 7, 8 & 9 (proposed by industry experts during

Round One)

Indicate your response to each ‘Factor’ by simply indicating your preferred ‘rating’ for each (by

inserting a against the appropriate response):

1 = Not Relevant 2 = Little Relevance 3 = Quite Relevant 4 = Very Relevant 5 = Most Relevant

NOTE: The AIM of collecting and summarising the various responses from survey rounds, is for all participants to

reach a CONSENSUS or STABILITY in the weight of the various dynamics and associated factors provided in the

Delphi Survey Questionnaire. As an official member of this panel of experts, you are now given an opportunity to

re-evaluate the original responses you provided in Round One by comparing them to the mean rate of all panel

members…either:

(a) Re-enter your original Round One weight for a dynamic or associated factor; OR

(b) Match (agree with) the mean rate of the panel members; OR

(c) Provide a new weight for a dynamic or associated factor.

Appendices

- 321 -

The attached ROUND TWO Delphi Survey Questionnaire should take approximately fifteen to twenty minutes to complete.

Survey Return Options

Once complete, kindly SAVE your responses and return the attached Round Two Delphi Survey Questionnaire to the Author by 1st November 2008 – by using one of the following return options…: (a) Attach completed survey document to an email message and send it to the Author at

[email protected] for analysis; OR (b) Print completed survey and fax it to (07) 3890 2457 for analysis; OR (c) Print completed survey document and post it to 61 Wyandra Crescent Murarrie, 4172 for

analysis; OR (d) Contact the Author (Achi Weippert) on 0413 035 882 to have your completed survey

collected from your office.

Definition of Terms

Kindly refer to the definitions of terms (found on the following page) used within the

Delphi Survey Questionnaire:

Additional Information Should you require any further assistance or clarification, please do not hesitate in contacting me. Sincerely,

Achi Weippert (PhD Candidate) Faculty of Built Environment and Engineering School of Urban Development Queensland University of Technology (QUT) Email: [email protected] Mobile: 0413 035 882 Mail: 61 Wyandra Crescent, Murarrie, Brisbane, 4172

Appendices

- 322 -

Definition of Terms

Change ‘To make the form, nature, content, future course, etc., of (something) different from what it is or from what it would be if left alone… to become different in essence…

losing one’s or its original nature...’ Dictionary.com (2008b)

Culture Culture is defined as a collection of common held experiences, perceptions, values, attitudes, beliefs, morals, and ‘ways of thinking’ that both ‘represent’ and ‘influence’

the way ‘things are collectively done’ by members within an organisation, group, or team environment

Dynamic ‘An efficient incentive…a basic or interactive force… especially one that motivates, affects development or stability, etc. Dictionary.com (2008c)

Expert ‘An experienced person who has special skill or knowledge in some particular field, area or subject’ Dictionary.com (2008e)

An expert is defined as being an experienced individual or group skilled and/or knowledgeable in the process of delivering change within the construction industry arena

Implementation ‘To fulfil… to perform… to carry out… to put into effect, etc... according to or by means of a definite plan or procedure’ Skyrme (1998)

Initiative An Initiative is defined as a plan; proposal; idea; scheme; program; project; etc.

Innovation ‘The creation of new knowledge and turning ideas into valuable products and services….developing and implementing a new idea in an applied setting…the effective

generation and implementation of a new idea, which enhances overall organisational performance…the process whereby new and improved products, processes,

materials and services are developed and transferred to a market where they are appropriate’ RICS and Salford University (2007, 9-14), RICS and Salford University

(2007, 3), White and Bruton (2007, 16-165, 243-57, 393) and Dictionary.com (2008f)

Innovation is defined as follows: The generation and application of new knowledge; an original idea; product; process; material; or service that enhances overall

performances.

Innovative Change

Innovative Change is defined as: The intentional (controlled / deliberate) development or unintentional (uncontrolled / natural) progression of an idea, knowledge, product,

process, system, service or course of action that appropriately enhances and transforms overall performances and efficiencies within a practical environment – an

improved way of doing something better.

Interdependent ‘Mutually dependent…reliant on one another’ AllWords.com (2008) and Dictionary.com (2008g)

Appendices

- 323 -

Definition of Terms

Key ’A vital, crucial element … serving as an essential component [of something]… of vital importance’ Robbins (1998, 138-86, 347, 595-98, 601-46). To be referred to as a

‘key’ component, element, factor, dynamic, etc., is based on the relevancy rating it receives – that is, by referring to a scale of 1 (no relevancy) to 5 (most relevant), should

any of the above receive a relevancy rate of between 3 and 5 (somewhat to most relevant), then it is considered to be a ‘key’ component of a CDF for delivering innovative


Leadership ‘The ability to influence a group toward the achievement of common goals and objectives…the art of getting things done through others’ White and Bruton (2007, 16-165,

243-57, 393) and Mirriam-Webster's Online Dictionary (2008)

Learning Culture

Learning Culture is defined as follows: Where the collective disciplines and individual learning qualities and capabilities of employees are encouraged to be practiced in an

environment that promotes enhanced levels of thinking, a commitment to continuous discovery, a way of perceiving issues, support, motivation and the use of shared

views

Organisation ‘An administrative and functional structure (as a business) [including] the personnel of such a structure’ Dictionary.com (2008j) or ’a group of people who work together’

Dictionary.com (2008n) – including project teams; action or task groups; etc.

Team ’A number of persons associated in some joint action… a group organised to work together… a cooperative unit’ Dictionary.com (2008d)

Factor ’One that actively contributes to an accomplishment, result, or process…a fundamental, essential, or irreducible constituent of a composite entity / [dynamic]’ Gupta and

Thomas (2001)

Sub-Culture Sub-Culture is defined as clusters or groups of people naturally developed and / or formed through regular interaction within their common work and / or social

environment…based on shared understandings and interpretations of common events and activities

Training / Education

‘Unlocking and developing an individual employee’s creativity and skills (to do things differently through newly attained knowledge and experience)...and to be able to

effectively apply and communicate these new skill-sets [new way of doing things] within their work environment’ Linowes J.G. (1999), Swe and Kleiner (1998) and Von

Krogh et al. (2000, i-x, 3, 5-43, 100, 292)

APPENDICES

- 324 -

DELPHI SURVEY QUESTIONNNAIRE

ROUND TWO

‘What decision-making dynamics are necessary when delivering innovative change within an

organisation?’

Achi Weippert

PhD Candidate

# N0246 1633 03

1st October 2008

APPENDICES

- 325 -

BACKGROUND: YOU & YOUR ORGANISATION (You have already provided these details in Delphi Survey Questionnaire – Round One)


KINDLY RE-EVALUATE YOUR WEIGHTING FOR

EACH CHANGE FACTOR

BY INSERTING A INTO THE APPROPRIATE BOX

RO

UN

D O

NE

WEI

GH

TIN

G

ROUND TWO

CH

AN

GE

FAC

TOR

S

INQUEST #1:


IMPLEMENTING INNOVATION-DRIVEN CHANGE INITIATIVES

(‘NEW WAY OF DOING THINGS’) WITHIN AN ORGANISATION OR

PROJECT TEAM ENVIRONMENT…ARE TO TAKE

INTO ACCOUNT THE FOLLOWING FACTORS AS PART

OF THEIR DECISION-MAKING PROCESS …

NO

T R

elev

ant

LITT

LE

Rel

evan

ce

QU

ITE

Rel

evan

t

VER

Y R

elev

ant

MO

ST R

elev

ant

EXPE

RT

AVE

RA

GE

YOU

R W

EIG

HTI

NG

1 2 3 4 5 The following are key factors in emphasising / reinforcing the 'need' to undergo change… (a) … Globalisation of the economy (offering increased business opportunities)?

(b) … Increased competition? (Fuelling the need to 'survive')? (c) … Technological advancement? (In areas such as software, hardware, e-Systems, mobile computing, handheld products, manufacturing, installation/erecting, etc)?

(d) … Labour shortages? (Causing, for example the need to adopt advanced resource and knowledge management initiatives)?

i. NEED FOR CHANGE

(e) … Increased client expectations? (In using, for example new / innovative / state-of-the-art processes, systems, products, methods, materials, etc.)?

ii. CHANGE DRIVERS

Identifying and then determining ways to incorporate the Key factors that can help drive / convince members to readily adopt the implementation and application process?

iii. CHANGE BARRIERS

Identifying and then determining ways to overcome various forms of resistance that challenges members to readily adopt and adapt to the implementation and application process?

iv. OVERCOMING CHALLENGES

Having ready access to relevant, trialled and tested actions and approaches to help members overcome their inherent fear and resisting nature towards the implementation and application process?


DELIVERING INNOVATIVE CHANGE WITHIN AN

ORGANISATION ARE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE

FOLLOWING CHANGE FACTORS - AS PART OF THEIR DECISION-MAKING PROCESS

APPENDICES

- 326 -



EACH CHANGE FACTOR

BY INSERTING A INTO THE APPROPRIATE

BOX

RO

UN

D O

NE

WEI

GH

TIN

G

ROUND TWO

CH

AN

GE

FAC

TOR

S

INQUEST #1: (cont.)




ACCOUNT THE FOLLOWING FACTORS AS PART OF THEIR


NO

T R

elev

ant

LITT

LE R

elev

ance

QU

ITE

Rel

evan

t

VER

Y R

elev

ant

MO

ST R

elev

ant

EXPE

RT

AVE

RA

GE

YOU

R W

EIG

HTI

NG

1 2 3 4 5 Having ready access to the most relevant, trialled and tested (best practice) implementation and application processes / strategies that are…

(a) … Timely (undertaken at a suitable / preferred point in time)?

(b) … Cost effective (efficient use of resources)?

i. COST vs. TIMING vs. DIFFICULTY

(c) … Less ‘difficult’ / user friendly (greater chance of success / sustainability)?

ii. METHODS MODELS / FRAMEWORKS

Having ready access to relevant, trialled and tested (best practice) change models, methods / frameworks to help ensure a successful and sustainable implementation and application process?

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LEADERS WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE

FOR DELIVERING INNOVATIVE CHANGE WITHIN AN

ORGANISATION ARE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE FOLLOWING

CHANGE FACTORS - AS PART OF THEIR DECISION-MAKING PROCESS

APPENDICES

- 327 -

2. INNOVATION (Page 1 of 1)


EACH INNOVATION FACTOR BY INSERTING


RO

UN

D O

NE

WEI

GH

TIN

G

ROUND TWO

INN

OVA

TIO

N

FAC

TOR

S INQUEST # 2:


LEADERS WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR




INTO ACCOUNT THE FOLLOWING FACTORS AS PART OF THEIR


NO

T R

elev

ant

LITT

LE R

elev

ance

QU

ITE

Rel

evan

t

VER

Y R

elev

ant

MO

ST R

elev

ant

EXPE

RT

AVE

RA

GE

YOU

R W

EIG

HTI

NG

1 2 3 4 5 i. STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT

Having ready access to relevant, trialled and tested (best practice) strategic approaches, actions / methods to help better manage / control / govern / lead / champion a newly proposed innovation-driven change initiative?

ii. INNOVATION TYPES

Determining the most appropriate ‘type’ of innovation to pursue (including being familiar of all associated factors, potential business / strategic benefits, profitability aspects, risks, etc)?

iii. INNOVATIVE CAPABILITY VS. INNOVATIVE NEED

Determining the efficiency and responsiveness of an organisation’s or project team's innovative capabilities (i.e.: ability to recognise, create and apply innovative initiatives) to help verify the overall need to be more innovative or not?

iv. INNOVATION DRIVERS

Identifying and then determining ways to incorporate the key factors that help drive / convince members to accelerate and revitalise their desire in becoming more innovative?

v. INNOVATION CHALLENGES / BARRIERS

Identifying and then determining ways to overcome key concerns that tend to challenge innovation related activities / initiatives?




FOLLOWING INNOVATION FACTORS - AS PART OF THEIR DECISION-MAKING PROCESS

APPENDICES

- 328 -

3. IMPLEMENTATION (Page 1 of 1)


EACH IMPLEMENTATION FACTOR BY INSERTING A


RO

UN

D O

NE

WEI

GH

TIN

G

ROUND TWO

IMPL

EMEN

TATI

ON

FA

CTO

RS

INQUEST # 3:





PROCESS …

NO

T R

elev

ant

LITT

LE

Rel

evan

ce

QU

ITE

Rel

evan

t VE

RY

Rel

evan

t M

OST

R

elev

ant

EXPE

RT

AVE

RA

GE

YOU

R

WEI

GH

TIN

G

1 2 3 4 5 i. BUSINESS

GOALS / OBJECTIVES

Ensuring that the implementation / application process fulfils (meets) at least one or a combination key / pre- determined business / strategic / project goals and objectives?

Having ready access to relevant, trialled and tested (best practice) implementation strategies / methods / models / frameworks that best serve the needs of…

(a) … The innovation-driven change solution ‘new way of doing things’ itself?

ii. STRATEGIES /

METHODS / MODELS / FRAMEWORK

(b) … The organisation or project team work / social environment - i.e.: members, end-users and other stakeholders affected by the implementation / application process?

Ensuring the implementation and application process incorporates the following three actions…: (a) … Timing: determining a suitable point in

time for an implementation / application process to get underway?

(a) … Prioritisation: identifying what takes precedence pre, during and after the implementation / application process?

iii. TIMING /

PRIORITISE / DELEGATION

(b) … Delegation: determining who does what (resource management) pre, during and after the implementation / application process?

iv. BARRIERS /

CHALLENGES

Determining ways to overcome key concerns / contributing factors that tend to challenge the implementation / application process?

v. SUCCESS

FACTORS

Determining ways to Incorporate critical success factors that will help ensure a sustainable implementation / application process?


FOR DELIVERING INNOVATIVE CHANGE WITHIN AN ORGANISATION ARE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE

FOLLOWING IMPLEMENTATION FACTORS - AS PART OF THEIR DECISION-MAKING PROCESS

APPENDICES

- 329 -



EACH CULTURE FACTOR


BOX

RO

UN

D O

NE

WEI

GH

TIN

G

ROUND TWO

CU

LTU

RE

FAC

TOR

S INQUEST # 4:


WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR IMPLEMENTING INNOVATION-DRIVEN CHANGE INITIATIVES (‘NEW WAY OF



PROCESS …

NO

T R

elev

ant

LITT

LE

Rel

evan

ce

QU

ITE

Rel

evan

t VE

RY

Rel

evan

t M

OST

R

elev

ant

EXPE

RT

AVE

RA

GE

YOU

R

WEI

GH

TIN

G

1 2 3 4 5 Convincing members to readily change their current / traditional ways of ‘doing things’ (culture) in order to adopt a newer, more efficient or innovative way of ‘doing the same thing’ is CHALLENGING - due to ‘CULTURE’ being …: (a) … One of the most highly influential resources in determining the sustainability (success or failure) of an implementation and application process?

(a) … One of the most difficult and complex dynamics to identify with / define / understand?

i. CULTURE CHANGE PHILOSOPHY

(b) … One of the most difficult and complex dynamics to predict / control / manage? Increased Levels of success in adopting a sustainable change in culture can be achieved by construction industry leaders…: (a) … Reinforcing a relationship of ‘trust’ between co-workers, senior management, employees, and other internal / external stakeholders?

(a) … Improving office design / layout and / or working environments / conditions (e.g.: open vs. closed office layout, upgrade onsite facilities & safety, etc)?

(b) … Introducing a voluntary job or task rotation policy (e.g.: flexible rosters, five-day working week policy, etc)?

(c) … Offering / promoting pragmatic reward and effective incentive packages?

ii. SUCCESS FACTORS

(d) … Increasing employee / stakeholder participation in the decision making process of implementing innovation-driven change initiatives (‘new way of doing things’) in existing / future work environments?


DELIVERING INNOVATIVE CHANGE WITHIN AN ORGANISATION ARE TO

TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE FOLLOWING CULTURE FACTORS - AS

PART OF THEIR DECISION-MAKING PROCESS

APPENDICES

- 330 -



EACH CULTURE FACTOR


BOX

RO

UN

D O

NE

WEI

GH

TIN

G

ROUND TWO

CU

LTU

RE

FAC

TOR

S






PROCESS …

NO

T R

elev

ant

LITT

LE

Rel

evan

ce

QU

ITE

Rel

evan

t

VER

Y R

elev

ant

MO

ST

Rel

evan

t

EXPE

RT

AVE

RA

GE

YOU

R

WEI

GH

TIN

G

1 2 3 4 5 i. FEATURE / CHARACTER / QUALITY / TYPE / CLASSIFIC.

Having ready access to relevant, trialled and tested (best practice) methods on how to analyse the unique and highly influential cultural features, characteristics (perceptions, behaviour, values, etc.), qualities, types and classifications (strengths, weaknesses, etc.) of an organisation, group or team? (i.e.: to help determine the most efficient / effective way to change / adapt / align traditional work / social habits to a newly proposed (innovation-driven) initiative or new / alternate way of ‘doing things’)

ii. NEED FOR CULTURE CHANGE

To ensure the successful and sustainable implementation / application of a new or alternate ‘way of doing something’ (change) will require the above features, characteristics, qualities, types and classifications of an existing culture (work and social undertakings of employees) to change? (i.e.: better aligning themselves to the 'new way of doing things')

iii. WORK-LIFE BALANCE

Ensuring that members of an organisation, group, or team strongly align with a suitable, sustainable and efficient ‘work-life balance’ strategy? (i.e.: one that satisfies both employee and family needs and expectations – by considering e.g.: flexible hours worked, health and well-being (such as supply of fresh fruit in the workplace, health checks, and a greater emphasis on exercise), social gatherings (family fun days), adventure / team-building activities, etc.)

iv. SUB-CULTURES

Having ready access to relevant, trialled and tested (best practice) methods on how to analyse the uniquely inherent, varying and often contradicting sub-cultures of an organisation or project team?

(i.e.: to help determine the most efficient / effective way to change / adapt / align traditional work / social habits to a newly proposed (innovation-driven) initiative or new / alternate way of ‘doing things’ )

v. METHOD / MODEL / FRAMEWORK

Having ready access to relevant, trialled and tested (best practice) cultural ‘alignment’ / change models, methods and frameworks? (i.e.: to help ensure implementation / application success and sustainability)


WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING INNOVATIVE CHANGE WITHIN AN ORGANISATION ARE TO

TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE FOLLOWING CULTURE FACTORS - AS

PART OF THEIR DECISION-MAKING PROCESS

APPENDICES

- 331 -



EACH CULTURE FACTOR


BOX

RO

UN

D O

NE

WEI

GH

TIN

G

ROUND TWO

LEA

DER

SHIP

FA

CTO

RS

INQUEST # 5:


DRIVEN CHANGE INITIATIVES (‘NEW WAY OF DOING THINGS’) WITHIN AN ORGANISATION OR PROJECT TEAM ENVIRONMENT…ARE TO TAKE INTO



NO

T R

elev

ant

LITT

LE

Rel

evan

ce

QU

ITE

Rel

evan

t VE

RY

Rel

evan

t M

OST

R

elev

ant

EXPE

RT

AVE

RA

GE

YOU

R

WEI

GH

TIN

G

1 2 3 4 5 i. LEADER vs. MANAGER

Realise that ‘…NOT all leaders are managers, NOR are managers all leaders’?

Ensuring that a leader / champion's 'human intervention' capabilities / experience include…: (a) … An enhanced level of both personal and professional communication skill sets?

(a) … Being able to facilitate a positive environment of mutual assurance and success?

(b) … The ability of setting achievable business goals and objectives?

ii. HUMAN INTERVENTION

(c) … Recognising personal (employee) and other (non-human) resource capabilities / limitations?

Considering the introduction of new (external) leaders to champion employees through the implementation / application process due to them potentially contributing…: (a) … Fresh / enhanced / valuable ‘never tried before’ leadership skill sets (communication, business, etc.)?

(a) … Tried and tested recipes for success (innovative ideas, processes, approaches etc.)?

iii. NEW VS. OLD LEADERS / CHAMPIONS

(b) … Clearer (unbiased / realistic) visions / goals / objectives for the future?

iv. TRUST & COLLABORATE

Ensure leaders / champions encourage employees to continuously promote a sustainable 'culture’ of trust and collaboration (pre, during and beyond) the implementation / application process?

v. LEADERSHIP TRAPS

Ensure leaders / champions have ready access to past leadership ‘traps' / hints (do’s and don’ts) experienced by acknowledged leaders / champions from both construction and other industry sectors?



ORGANISATION ARE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE FOLLOWING LEADERSHIP FACTORS - AS PART

OF THEIR DECISION-MAKING PROCESS

APPENDICES

- 332 -



EACH LEADERSHIP FACTOR BY INSERTING


RO

UN

D O

NE

WEI

GH

TIN

G

ROUND TWO

LEA

DER

SHIP

FA

CTO

RS





DECISION-MAKING PROCESS … N

OT

Rel

evan

t LI

TTLE

R

elev

ance

Q

UIT

E R

elev

ant

VER

Y R

elev

ant

MO

ST

Rel

evan

t

EXPE

RT

AVE

RA

GE

YOU

R

WEI

GH

TIN

G

1 2 3 4 5 i. REGULAR REVIEWS

Ensuring leaders / champions Regularly and continuously (pre, during and beyond) review and test the implementation / application process?

ii. MINIMISE RESISTANCE

Ensuring leaders / champions have ready access to and incorporate relevant, tried and tested (best practice) 'approaches' that can reduce organisational or team member resistance towards the implementation of an innovation-driven change initiative?

iii. METHODS / MODELS / FRAMEWORKS

Ensuring leaders / champions have ready access to and incorporate relevant, tried and tested (best practice) leadership models, methods, action lists, and frameworks to help ensure a successful implementation / application process?


LEADERS WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING INNOVATIVE CHANGE WITHIN AN

ORGANISATION ARE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE FOLLOWING LEADERSHIP FACTORS - AS PART

OF THEIR DECISION-MAKING PROCESS

APPENDICES

- 333 -



EACH TRAINING & EDUCATION FACTOR BY


RO

UN

D O

NE

WEI

GH

TIN

G

ROUND TWO

TRA

ININ

G &

ED

UC

ATI

ON

FA

CTO

RS

INQUEST # 6:





OT

Rel

evan

t LI

TTLE

R

elev

ance

Q

UIT

E R

elev

ant

VER

Y R

elev

ant

MO

ST

Rel

evan

t

EXPE

RT

AVE

RA

GE

YOU

R

WEI

GH

TIN

G

1 2 3 4 5 Ensuring trainers and educators offer and promote effective reward and learning incentive packages that encourages…: (a) … Employees to continue training, learning and developing their individual skill-sets?

(a) … Increased productivity levels of employees?

i. LEARNING INCENTIVES

(b) … Employees to voluntarily create, share, and apply their newly attained knowledge amongst other co-workers; stakeholders; and work environments?

ii. DELIVERY

Ensuring trainers and educators have ready access to, and have the required skill-sets to employ the latest training and education delivery tools (models, frameworks, action-points, ‘disciplines’, etc)? (e.g.: utilising synchronised and instructor-led training systems / programs with innovative and user-friendly video, audio and graphical presentation for geographically dispersed applications, etc.)

iii. BENEFITS

Ensuring trainers and educators recognise and continuously promote the key benefits that can be gained through improved training and education?

iv. GOOD INVESTMENT?

Investing in the development (training / educating) of employees and project team members is a logical, worthwhile and essential endeavour?


FOR DELIVERING INNOVATIVE CHANGE WITHIN AN

ORGANISATION ARE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE FOLLOWING TRAINING AND EDUCATION

FACTORS - AS PART OF THEIR DECISION-MAKING PROCESS

APPENDICES

- 334 -


The next section (Training & Education - Page 3 of 3) - present four additional training

& education factors proposed by a participants in Round One – that is, as most relevant

(rating of 5) in being part of the decision-making process in the delivery of innovative

change within an organisation

Kindly assess these accordingly (based on your experiences)…


EACH TRAINING & EDUCATION FACTOR BY


RO

UN

D O

NE

WEI

GH

TIN

G

ROUND TWO

TRA

ININ

G &

ED

UC

ATI

ON

FA

CTO

RS








OT

Rel

evan

t

LITT

LE

Rel

evan

ce

QU

ITE

Rel

evan

t

VER

Y R

elev

ant

MO

ST R

elev

ant

EXPE

RT

AVE

RA

GE

YOU

R W

EIG

HTI

NG

1 2 3 4 5 The best way for trainers and educators to improve long-term efficiencies and enhance overall productivity levels of employees (through the effective utilisation of a newly proposed innovation-driven change initiative or new way of ‘doing things’) is to…:

(a) …Unlock and develop an individual employee’s creativity and skills?

i. ENHANCED EFFICIENCY / PRODUCTIVITY

(b) …Provide employees with a suitable and professional learning / training environment / platform that enable newly acquired skill-sets to be effectively disseminated, communicated and applied within current and future work environments?

ii. UNTRAINED / UNEDUCATED

Ensuring key employees and / or project team members are NOT left uneducated or untrained on how to effectively utilise a newly proposed innovation-driven change initiative or new way of ‘doing things’? (i.e.: to help ensure members of an organisation and / or project team perform to their full / required potential)



ORGANISATION ARE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE FOLLOWING

TRAINING AND EDUCATION FACTORS - AS PART OF THEIR DECISION-MAKING PROCESS

APPENDICES

- 335 -


(Identified by Industry Experts #1 & 5 - Round 1)

The next three sections (7, 8 & 9) present three additional dynamics proposed by

participants in Round One – that is, all three being regarded highly relevant (rating of 5)

in the decision-making process of delivering innovative change within an organisation.

Kindly assess these accordingly (based on your experiences)…

KINDLY PROVIDE YOUR WEIGHTING FOR EACH

TRAINING & EDUCATION FACTOR BY INSERTING


RO

UN

D O

NE

WEI

GH

TIN

G

ROUND TWO

TRA

ININ

G &

ED

UC

ATI

ON

FA

CTO

RS



LEADERS WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR




INTO ACCOUNT THE FOLLOWING FACTORS AS PART OF THEIR DECISION-

MAKING PROCESS … N

OT

Rel

evan

t

LITT

LE R

elev

ance

QU

ITE

Rel

evan

t

VER

Y R

elev

ant

MO

ST R

elev

ant

ADDITIONAL FACTORS SUGGESTED BY AN INDUSTRY EXPERT PANEL MEMBER IN ROUND ONE EX

PER

T SU

GG

ESTE

D

WEI

GH

TIN

G

YOU

R W

EIG

HTI

NG

1 2 3 4 5 Tertiary staff members are to take an active role in and get more involved with current construction industry undertakings during teaching by… (a) … Ensuring enhanced efforts and improved input from Professional Learned Bodies from the industry?

5

i. BROADER INDUSTRY SUPPORT / INVOLVEMENT

(b) … Having ready access to relevant successful - as well as failed - case study examples for enhanced future learning?

5

ii. ABILITY

Ensuring trainers and educators have the ability to offer the necessary industry standard and level of education?

5

iii. UNDERSTANDING

Ensuring employees and / or project team members have the basic ability to learn the new skill sets?

5

iv. COMMONSENSE

Ensuring employees and / or project team members can think in a logical way?

5




FOLLOWING TRAINING AND EDUCATION FACTORS - AS PART OF THEIR DECISION-

MAKING PROCESS

APPENDICES

- 336 -

7. KNOWLEDGE SHARING / MANAGEMENT (Page 1 of 1)

(Identified by Industry Expert #2 - Round 1)

KNOWLEDGE SHARING / MANAGEMENT KINDLY EVALUATE

YOUR WEIGHTING FOR EACH KNOWLEDGE

SHARING / MANAGEMENT FACTOR BY INSERTING


RO

UN

D O

NE

WE

IGH

TIN

G

ROUND TWO

DEFINITION: The need for an

organisation or team to be ready and able to (a) convert their traditional

(tacit and explicit) formats of value-adding

data, information and / or knowledge (for future use), and (b) storing

them in a shared (electronic) environment

- whilst ensuring their efforts to manage and share the electronic

data, information and / or knowledge, closely

matches (if not reduces) their traditional efforts of managing and sharing

the equivalent hard copy formats of the same

data, information and / or knowledge - i.e.:

"leading... not bleeding" by having e.g.: ready

access to (a) user friendly / electronic-shared workspaces /

platforms (internet, etc.), and / or (b) data, information and

knowledge creating, storing, and sharing platforms, system,

programs, etc.

INQUEST # 7:





INTO ACCOUNT THE FOLLOWING FACTORS AS PART

OF THEIR DECISION-MAKING PROCESS …

NO

T R

elev

ant

LITT

LE R

elev

ance

QU

ITE

Rel

evan

t

VER

Y R

elev

ant

MO

ST R

elev

ant


PER

T SU

GG

ESTE

D W

EIG

HTI

NG

YOU

R W

EIG

HTI

NG

1 2 3 4 5 i. CHANGING TRADITIONAL DATA STORAGE METHODS

Converting traditional (tacit and explicit) formats of value-adding data, information and / or knowledge (for future use), and (b) storing them in a shared (electronic) environment?

5

ii. SHARING VS. STORING EFFORT

Ensure efforts to MANAGE and SHARE electronic data, information and / or knowledge, closely matches (if not reduces) traditional efforts of managing and sharing the equivalent hard copy formats of the same data, information and / or knowledge?

5

iii. SHARED WORK-SPACES

Having ready access to user friendly / electronic-shared workspaces / platforms (internet, etc.) and data, information and knowledge creating, storing, and sharing platforms, system, programs, etc.?

5

iv. LEADING EDGE

Ensuring that all sharing and management of data, information and knowledge are value adding as no-one wants to be on the "bleeding edge"? "Leading... not bleeding".

5




FOLLOWING KNOWLEDGE SHARING / MANAGEMENT

FACTORS - AS PART OF THEIR DECISION-MAKING PROCESS

APPENDICES

- 337 -

8. IMPACT ON END CLIENT BUSINESS (Page 1 of 1)


CLIENT BUSINESS

KINDLY PROVIDE YOUR WEIGHTING FOR EACH

CLIENT BUSINESS FACTOR BY INSERTING


RO

UN

D O

NE

WE

IGH

TIN

G

ROUND TWO

DEFINITION: The need for an organisation or

team to be confident in re-

engineering current infrastructures (for

a proposed innovation-driven change initiative), and the need to

take into account all possible effects this may have on the re-

engineering, infrastructure and /

or business process requirements of the end-client and other

key stakeholders

INQUEST # 8:







NO

T R

elev

ant

LITT

LE R

elev

ance

QU

ITE

Rel

evan

t

VER

Y R

elev

ant

MO

ST R

elev

ant


PER

T SU

GG

ESTE

D

WEI

GH

TIN

G

YOU

R W

EIG

HTI

NG

1 2 3 4 5

i. GO THE EXTRA MILE

Developing strong client / key stakeholder relationships - i.e.: beyond the mere re-engineering / supply requirements of the physical infrastructure of the proposed innovation-driven change initiative?

5

ii. DEVELOP SYNERGY

(2 + 2 = 5+)

Developing a total business plan with the client (with win / win outcomes) - by taking into account all possible effects the implementation of a proposed innovation-driven change initiative may have on the re-engineering, infrastructures and / or business process requirements of the end-client and other key stakeholders (e.g.: by employing an impact or risk assessment plan)?

5




FOLLOWING IMPACT ON END-CLIENT BUSINESS FACTORS - AS PART OF THEIR DECISION-

MAKING PROCESS

APPENDICES

- 338 -

9. WHOLE OF BUSINESS LIFECYCLE COST (Page 1 of 1)


End of Delphi Survey Questionnaire (Round Two)

Kindly save and return your responses to the Author

(As outlined at the beginning of the survey)

THANK YOU

WHOLE OF BUSINESS KINDLY PROVIDE YOUR WEIGHTING FOR EACH WHOLE OF BUSINESS

FACTOR BY INSERTING


RO

UN

D O

NE

WE

IGH

TIN

G

ROUND TWO

DEFENITION: The need for an organisation or

team to fully consider the

lifecycle costs (of a proposed

innovation-driven change initiative) and

compare these against total business /

project costs (e.g.: by

undertaking a cost / return on

investment analysis)

INQUEST # 9:






NO

T R

elev

ant

LITT

LE R

elev

ance

QU

ITE

Rel

evan

t

VER

Y R

elev

ant

MO

ST R

elev

ant

ADDITIONAL FACTORS SUGGESTED BY AN INDUSTRY EXPERT PANEL MEMBERS IN ROUND ONE EX

PER

T SU

GG

ESTE

D

WEI

GH

TIN

G

YOU

R W

EIG

HTI

NG

1 2 3 4 5

The need to…:

(a) … Work closely with clients… in order to evaluate the proposed innovation-driven change initiative - based on whole of business cost lifecycle?

5

i. COST OF INNOVATION-DRIVEN CHANGE INITIATIVE

(b) … Considered all Capital vs. Operational Costs (i.e.: have effectively compared the upfront capital costs of the proposed innovation-driven change initiative against the later and ongoing operation costs)?

5


LEADERS WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING INNOVATIVE

CHANGE WITHIN AN ORGANISATION ARE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE FOLLOWING WHOLE OF BUSINESS

LIFECYCLE COST FACTORS - AS PART OF THEIR DECISION-MAKING

PROCESS

APPENDICES

- 339 -

Appendix J: Data Analysis and Key Findings

DELPHI SURVEY

NINE KEY INTERDEPENDENT DYNAMICS #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9

ROUND 2 AVERAGE RATING

(#1-7 & 9)

ROUND 1 AVERAGE RATING (#1 - 9)

1 CHANGE 70 82 75 79 78 75 77 0 85 78 75 %2 INNOVATION 60 68 76 76 68 64 64 0 88 71 76 %3 IMPLEMENTATION 67 81 80 76 71 80 61 0 79 74 78 %4 CULTURE ("Human Factor") 66 70 69 68 68 58 76 0 84 70 70 %5 LEADERSHIP ("Champion") 74 81 78 78 71 66 71 0 89 76 79 %6 TRAINING / EDUCATION 79 85 68 80 82 72 78 0 99 80 77 %

7 KNOWLEDGE SHARING / MANAGEMENT (Suggested by Industry Expert #2 - Round 1) 70 83 75 80 80 70 90 0 100 81 100 %

8 IMPACT ON END CLIENT BUSINESS (Suggested by Industry Expert #9 - Round 1) 80 60 60 80 80 80 80 0 100 78 100 %

9 WHOLE OF BUSINESS LIFECYCLE COST (Suggested by Industry Expert #9 - Round 1) 80 80 80 80 90 60 100 0 100 84 100 %

INDUSTRY EXPERT PANELKEY INTERDEPENDENT DYNAMICS

*** SUMMARY ***

(80 - 100 %)VERY - MOST

RELEVANT

(50 - 79 %)SOMEWHAT - VERY

RELEVANT

(0 - 49 %)NONE - LITTLE

RELEVANCE

RELEVANCY SUMMARY OF NINE DYNAMICS

78 71 7470

76 80 81 78 8475 76 78

7079 77

100 100 100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

CHANGE

INNOVATIO

N

IMPLE

MENTATION

CULTURE ("H

uman

Factor

")

LEADERSHIP ("C

hampio

n")

TRAININ

G / EDUCATIO

N

KNOWLEDGE SHARIN

G / MANAGEMENT

(Su..

.

IMPACT O

N END CLIENT BUSIN

ESS (S

ugge

st.

WHOLE O

F BUSINESS LI

FECYCLE C

OST (S

u...

(%)

#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 ROUND 2 AVERAGE RATING (#1-7 & 9)

ROUND 1 AVERAGE RATING (#1 - 9)

Three additional dynamics identified by expert panel

members as being key components of a CDF for

delivering innovative change within organisations

NINE DYNAMICS

60%

Th

resh

old

NOTE: Data from Industry Expert #8 are excluded from Final Analysis (As noted in Section 5.11)

APPENDICES

- 340 -

DELPHI SURVEY

KEY INTERDEPENDENT DYNAMIC: CHANGE #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9

AVERAGE RATING

(#1-7 & 9) NEED FOR CHANGE 60 92 88 76 88 68 84 0 88 81 % Globalisation Of The Economy? 40 80 80 80 100 60 60 0 100 75 % Increased Competition? 40 100 80 60 80 60 100 0 80 75 % Technological Advancement? 80 100 100 80 80 80 80 0 100 88 % Labour Shortages? 80 100 80 80 100 60 100 0 80 85 % Increased Client Expectations? 60 80 100 80 80 80 80 0 80 80 %CHANGE DRIVERS 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 0 80 80 %CHANGE BARRIERS 80 60 80 80 60 80 80 0 80 75 %OVERCOMING CHALLENGES 60 100 60 80 80 80 80 0 80 78 %COST vs. TIMING vs. DIFFICULTY 60 80 60 80 60 80 60 0 100 73 % Timely? 60 80 60 80 60 80 60 0 100 73 % Cost Effective? 60 100 60 80 80 60 60 0 80 73 % Less 'Difficult' / More 'User Friendly'? 60 80 60 80 80 60 60 0 80 70 %METHODS / MODELS / FRAMEWORKS 80 80 80 80 100 60 80 0 80 80 %

*** FINAL WEIGHTING ***INDUSTRY EXPERT PANEL

(80 - 100 %)VERY - MOST

RELEVANT


RELEVANT


RELEVANCE

RELEVANCY OF DYNAMIC: CHANGE

8070737373787580808588

757581

0102030405060708090

100

NEED

FO

R CH

ANG

E

G

loba

lisat

ion

Of T

he E

cono

my?

In

crea

sed

Com

petit

ion?

Te

chno

logi

cal A

dvan

cem

ent?

Labo

ur S

horta

ges?

In

crea

sed

Clie

nt E

xpec

tatio

ns?

CHAN

GE

DRIV

ERS

CHAN

GE

BARR

IERS

OVE

RCO

MIN

G C

HALL

ENG

ES

COST

vs.

TIM

ING

vs.

DIF

FICU

LTY

Ti

mel

y?

Cost

Effe

ctive

?

Le

ss 'D

ifficu

lt' / M

ore

'Use

r Frie

ndly'

?

MET

HODS

/ M

ODE

LS /

FRAM

E...

(%)

#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 AVERAGE RATING (#1-7 & 9)

DYNAMIC: “CHANGE”

60%

Th

resh

old


APPENDICES

- 341 -

KEY INTERDEPENDENT DYNAMIC: INNOVATION #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9

AVERAGE RATING

(#1-7 & 9) INNOVATION TYPES 60 60 80 60 60 60 60 0 80 65 %STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT 60 80 100 80 100 60 60 0 100 80 %

INNOVATIVE CAPABILITIES vs. INNOVATIVE NEED 60 60 60 80 60 60 60 0 80 65 %INNOVATION DRIVERS 60 60 80 80 60 60 60 0 80 68 %INNOVATION CHALLENGES / BARRIERS 60 80 60 80 60 80 80 0 100 75 %

‘KEY INTERDEPENDENT DYNAMICS AND THEIR RELEVANT FACTORS THAT SHOULD BE PART OF THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS IN THE INTRODUCTION OF ANY FORM OF INNOVATION-DRIVEN CHANGE WITHIN AN ORGANISATION OR TEAM’


(80 - 100 %)VERY - MOST

RELEVANT


RELEVANT


RELEVANCE

DELPHI SURVEY

RELEVANCY OF DYNAMIC: INNOVATION

65

80

65 68

75

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

INNO

VATI

ON

TYPE

S

STRA

TEG

IC M

ANAG

EMEN

TIN

NOVA

TIVE

CAP

ABIL

ITIE

S vs

. INN

OVA

TIVE

NEE

D

INNO

VATI

ON

DRIV

ERS

INNO

VATI

ON

CHAL

LENG

ES /

BARR

IERS

(%)

#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 AVERAGE RATING (#1-7 & 9)

DYNAMIC: “INNOVATION”

60%

Th

resh

old


APPENDICES

- 342 -

KEY INTERDEPENDENT DYNAMIC: IMPLEMENTATION #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9

AVERAGE RATING

(#1-7 & 9) BUSINESS GOALS / OBJECTIVES 60 100 80 80 80 100 60 0 80 80 %STRATEGIES / METHODS / MODELS / FRAMEWORKS 60 60 80 60 60 60 60 0 70 64 % The innovation-driven change solution? 60 40 80 60 60 60 60 0 60 60 % The organisation or project team work / social environment? 60 80 80 60 60 60 60 0 80 68 %TIMING / PRIORITISATION / DELEGATION 73 87 80 80 73 80 67 0 86.7 78 % Timing? 80 100 80 80 60 80 60 0 80 78 % Prioritisation? 80 80 80 80 80 80 60 0 100 80 % Delegation? 60 80 80 80 80 80 80 0 80 78 %BARRIERS / CHALLENGES 60 80 80 80 60 80 60 0 80 73 %SUCCESS FACTORS 80 80 80 80 80 80 60 0 80 78 %



(80 - 100 %)VERY - MOST

RELEVANT


RELEVANT


RELEVANCE

DELPHI SURVEY

RELEVANCY OF DYNAMIC: IMPLEMENTATION

78737880787868

6064

80

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

BUSI

NES

S G

OAL

S / O

BJEC

TIVE

SST

RAT

EGIE

S /

MET

HO

DS

/ MO

DEL

S / F

R

Th

e in

nova

tion-

driv

en c

hang

e so

lutio

n?

The

orga

nisa

tion

or p

roje

ct te

am w

ork

/ so

TIM

ING

/ PR

IOR

ITIS

ATIO

N /

DEL

EGAT

ION

Ti

min

g?

Pr

iorit

isat

ion?

D

eleg

atio

n?

BAR

RIE

RS

/ CH

ALLE

NG

ES

SUC

CES

S FA

CTO

RS

(%)

#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 AVERAGE RATING (#1-7 & 9)

DYNAMIC: “IMPLEMENTATION”

60%

Th

resh

old


APPENDICES

- 343 -

KEY INTERDEPENDENT DYNAMIC: CULTURE #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9

AVERAGE RATING

(#1-7 & 9) CULTURE CHANGE PHILOSOPHY 73 73 100 80 80 73 100 0 80 83 % Highly Influential resources? 80 80 100 80 80 80 100 0 80 85 % Difficult and Complex Dynamics to Identify with / Define / Understand? 80 80 100 80 80 80 100 0 80 85 % Difficult and Complex Dynamics to Predict / Control / Manage? 60 60 100 80 80 60 100 0 80 78 %SUCCESS FACTORS 60 68 56 68 68 52 56 0 84 64 % Reinforcing a Relationship of ‘Trust’ ? 60 100 60 80 80 60 80 0 80 75 % Improving Office Design / Layout / Working Environments / Conditions? 60 60 40 60 60 40 40 0 60 53 % Introducing a Voluntary Job or Task Rotation Policy? 40 40 40 60 60 40 40 0 100 53 % Offering Pragmatic Reward and Effective Incentive Packages? 60 60 80 60 60 40 60 0 80 63 % Increasing Employee / Stakeholder Participation? 80 80 60 80 80 80 60 0 100 78 %FEATURE / CHARACTERISTIC / QUALITY / TYPE / CLASSIFICATION 60 60 60 60 80 60 60 0 80 65 %NEED FOR CULTURE CHANGE 80 80 80 80 60 60 80 0 80 75 %WORK-LIFE BALANCE 60 80 40 80 60 60 80 0 100 70 %SUB-CULTURES 60 60 80 40 60 40 80 0 80 63 %METHODS / MODELS / FRAMEWORKS 60 40 60 60 80 40 60 0 80 60 %



(80 - 100 %)VERY - MOST

RELEVANT


RELEVANT


RELEVANCE

DELPHI SURVEY

RELEVANCY OF DYNAMIC: CULTURE

6063

7075

65

78

635353

75

64

78858583

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

CU

LTU

RE

CH

ANG

E PH

ILO

SOPH

Y

Hig

hly

Influ

entia

l res

ourc

es?

D

iffic

ult a

nd C

ompl

ex D

ynam

ics

to Id

entif

y w

D

iffic

ult a

nd C

ompl

ex D

ynam

ics

to P

redi

..

SUC

CES

S FA

CTO

RS

R

einf

orci

ng a

Rel

atio

nshi

p of

‘Tru

st’ ?

Im

prov

ing

Offi

ce D

esig

n / L

ayou

t / W

orki

..

Intro

duci

ng a

Vol

unta

ry J

ob o

r Tas

k R

ot...

O

fferin

g Pr

agm

atic

Rew

ard

and

Effe

ctiv

...

Incr

easi

ng E

mpl

oyee

/ St

akeh

olde

r Par

t...

FEAT

UR

E / C

HAR

ACTE

RIS

TIC

/ Q

UAL

I..N

EED

FO

R C

ULT

UR

E C

HAN

GE

WO

RK-

LIFE

BAL

ANC

E

SUB-

CU

LTU

RES

MET

HO

DS

/ MO

DEL

S / F

RAM

EWO

RKS

(%)

#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 AVERAGE RATING (#1-7 & 9)

DYNAMIC: “CULTURE”

60%

Th

resh

old


APPENDICES

- 344 -

KEY INTERDEPENDENT DYNAMIC: LEADERSHIP #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9

AVERAGE RATING

(#1-7 & 9) LEADER vs. MANAGER 80 100 80 80 80 80 100 0 80 85 %HUMAN INTERVENTION 65 85 85 80 80 80 80 0 85 80 % Personal and Professional? 80 80 100 80 80 80 80 0 80 83 % Positive Environment of Mutual Assurance and Success? 60 80 100 80 80 80 80 0 80 80 % Achievable Business Goals and Objectives? 60 100 80 80 80 80 80 0 100 83 % Resource Capabilities / Limitations? 60 80 60 80 80 80 80 0 80 75 %NEW VS. OLD LEADERS / CHAMPIONS 67 80 60 60 67 47 67 0 86.7 67 % Leadership Skill Sets (communication, business, etc.)? 60 60 60 60 60 40 60 0 100 63 % Recipies' for Success? 60 100 60 60 60 60 60 0 80 68 % Clearer (Unbiased / Realistic) Vision / Goals / Objectives? 80 80 60 60 80 40 80 0 80 70 %TRUST & COLLABORATION 80 100 80 80 60 60 80 0 100 80 %LEADERSHIP TRAPS 60 80 80 80 80 60 60 0 80 73 %REGULAR REVIEWS 80 80 80 80 80 80 60 0 100 80 %MINIMISE RESISTANCE 80 60 80 80 60 60 60 0 80 70 %METHODS / MODELS / FRAMEWORKS 80 60 80 80 60 60 60 0 100 73 %



(80 - 100 %)VERY - MOST

RELEVANT


RELEVANT


RELEVANCE

DELPHI SURVEY

RELEVANCY OF DYNAMIC: LEADERSHIP

7370807380706863

67758380838085

0102030405060708090

100

LEAD

ER v

s. M

ANAG

ERH

UM

AN IN

TER

VEN

TIO

N

Pers

onal

and

Pro

fess

iona

l?

Po

sitiv

e En

viro

nmen

t of M

utua

l Ass

ura

Ac

hiev

able

Bus

ines

s G

oals

and

O...

R

esou

rce

Cap

abilit

ies

/ Lim

itatio

ns?

NEW

VS.

OLD

LEA

DER

S / C

HAM

...

Lead

ersh

ip S

kill

Sets

(com

mun

icat

...

R

ecip

ies'

for S

ucce

ss?

C

lear

er (U

nbia

sed

/ Rea

listic

) Vis

ion.

.TR

UST

& C

OLL

ABO

RAT

ION

LEAD

ERSH

IP T

RAP

S

REG

ULA

R R

EVIE

WS

MIN

IMIS

E R

ESIS

TAN

CE

MET

HO

DS

/ MO

DEL

S / F

RAM

E...

(%)

#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 AVERAGE RATING (#1-7 & 9)

DYNAMIC: “LEADERSHIP”

60%

Th

resh

old


APPENDICES

- 345 -

DELPHI SURVEY

KEY INTERDEPENDENT DYNAMIC: TRAINING & EDUCATION #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9

AVERAGE RATING

(#1-7 & 9) LEARNING INCENTIVES 60 93 60 80 60 60 80 0 93.3 73 % Continue Training, Learning and Development of skill-sets? 60 80 60 80 60 60 80 0 100 73 % Increased Productivity Levels of employees (students)? 60 100 60 80 60 60 80 0 100 75 % Voluntarily Create, Share and Apply their newly attained knowledge? 60 100 60 80 60 60 80 0 80 73 %DELIVERY 60 60 60 80 60 80 60 0 100 70 %BENEFITS 80 80 60 80 60 60 80 0 100 75 %GOOD INVESTMENT? 80 100 60 80 80 80 80 0 100 83 %ENHANCED EFFICIENCY 70 80 60 80 80 80 80 0 100 79 % Creativity and Skills? 60 100 60 80 80 80 80 0 100 80 % Suitable and Professional Learning / Training Environment / Platform? 80 60 60 80 80 80 80 0 100 78 %PRODUCTIVITY UNTRAINED / UNEDUCATED 80 100 60 80 80 80 80 0 100 83 %BROADER INDUSTRY SUPPORT (Suggested by Industry Expert #1 - Round 1) 100 80 80 80 100 60 80 0 100 85 % Ensuring Enhanced Efforts and Improved Input from Professional Learned Bodies from the Industry? 100 100 80 80 100 60 80 0 100 88 % Having Ready Acess to Relevant Sucessful as well as Failed Case Study Examples for Enhanced Future Learning? 100 60 80 80 100 60 80 0 100 83 %ABILITY (Suggested by Industry Expert #5 - Round 1) 100 100 80 100 100 80 80 0 100 93 %UNDERSTANDING (Suggested by Industry Expert #5 - Round 1) 80 80 80 80 100 60 80 0 100 83 %COMMONSENSE (Suggested by Industry Expert #5 - Round 1) 80 80 80 60 100 80 80 0 100 83 %


(80 - 100 %)VERY - MOST

RELEVANT


RELEVANT


RELEVANCE

RELEVANCY OF DYNAMIC: TRAINING & EDUCATION

8383

93

8388858378807983

757073757373

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LEAR

NIN

G IN

CEN

TIVE

S

C

ontin

ue T

rain

ing,

Lea

rnin

g an

d D

evel

op...

In

crea

sed

Prod

uctiv

ity L

evel

s of

em

ploy

ees.

..

Vo

lunt

arily

Cre

ate,

Sha

re a

nd A

pply

thei

r new

ly

DEL

IVER

Y

BEN

EFIT

SG

OO

D IN

VEST

MEN

T?EN

HAN

CED

EFF

ICIE

NC

Y

Cre

ativ

ity a

nd S

kills

?

Su

itabl

e an

d Pr

ofes

sion

al L

earn

ing

/ Tra

inin

g E

PRO

DU

CTI

VITY

UN

TRAI

NED

/ U

NED

UC

...

BRO

ADER

IND

UST

RY

SUPP

OR

T

(Sug

gest

ed

En

surin

g En

hanc

ed E

fforts

and

Impr

oved

...

H

avin

g R

eady

Ace

ss to

Rel

evan

t Suc

essf

u...

ABIL

ITY

(S

ugge

sted

by

Indu

stry

Exp

ert #

5..

UN

DER

STAN

DIN

G

(Sug

gest

ed b

y In

dust

ry E

xp

CO

MM

ON

SEN

SE

(Sug

gest

ed b

y In

dust

ry...

(%)

#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 AVERAGE RATING (#1-7 & 9)

DYNAMIC: “TRAINING & EDUCATION”

60%

Th

resh

old

Four additional factors

underpinning the Hypothesised ‘Training and

Education’ dynamic –

identified by expert panel

members as being key components

of a CDF for delivering

innovative change within

organisations


APPENDICES

- 346 -

DELPHI SURVEY

KEY INTERDEPENDENT DYNAMIC: KNOWLEDGE SHARING & MANAGEMENT #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9

AVERAGE RATING

(#1-7 & 9) CHANGING TRADITIONAL DATA STORAGE METHODS 80 80 60 80 80 80 100 0 100 83 %SHARING VS. STORING EFFORT 60 100 80 80 80 60 100 0 100 83 %SHARED WORK-SPACES 60 80 80 80 80 80 80 0 100 80 %LEADING EDGE 80 100 80 80 80 60 80 0 100 83 %


(80 - 100 %)VERY - MOST

RELEVANT


RELEVANT


RELEVANCE

RELEVANCY OF DYNAMIC: KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT & SHARING

83808383

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

CHANGING TRADITIONALDATA STORAGE

METHODS

SHARING VS. STORINGEFFORT

SHARED WORK-SPACES LEADING EDGE

(%)

#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 AVERAGE RATING (#1-7 & 9)

Four factors underpinning the additional dynamic ‘Knowledge Sharing & Management’ – identified by expert panel members as being a key

component of a CDF for delivering innovative change within organisations

DYNAMIC: “KNOWLEDGE SHARING & MANAGEMENT”

60%

Th

resh

old


APPENDICES

- 347 -

KEY INTERDEPENDENT DYNAMIC: IMPACT ON END-CLIENT BUSINESS

#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9AVERAGE RATING

(#1-7 & 9) GO THE EXTRA MILE 80 60 60 80 80 80 80 0 100 78 %DEVELOP SYNERGY (2 + 2 = 5) 80 60 40 80 100 60 100 0 100 78 %



(80 - 100 %)VERY - MOST

RELEVANT


RELEVANT


RELEVANCE

DELPHI SURVEY

RELEVANCY OF DYNAMIC: IMPACT ON END CLIENT BUSINESS

78 78

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

GO THE EXTRA MILE DEVELOP SYNERGY (2 + 2 = 5)

(%)

#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 AVERAGE RATING (#1-7 & 9)

DYNAMIC:

“IMPACT ON END-CLIENT BUSINESS”

Two factors underpinning the additional dynamic ‘Impact on End-client Business’ – identified by expert panel members as being a key component of

a CDF for delivering innovative change within organisations

60%

Th

resh

old


APPENDICES

- 348 -

KEY INTERDEPENDENT DYNAMIC: WHOLE OF LIFECYCLE COST #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9

AVERAGE RATING

(#1-7 & 9) COST OF INNOVATION-DRIVEN CHANGE INITIATIVE 80 80 80 80 90 60 100 0 100 84 % Work Closely with Clients… 80 80 80 80 80 60 100 0 100 83 % Recognise Higher Capital Cost… 80 80 80 80 100 60 100 0 100 85 %



(80 - 100 %)VERY - MOST

RELEVANT


RELEVANT


RELEVANCE

DELPHI SURVEY

RELEVANCY OF DYNAMIC: WHOLE OF LIFECYCLE COST

84 83 85

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

COST OF INNOVATION-DRIVEN CHANGE INITIATIVE

Work Closely with Clients… Recognise Higher CapitalCost…

(%)

#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 AVERAGE RATING (#1-7 & 9)

Three factors underpinning the additional dynamic ‘Whole of Business Life-cycle Cost’ – identified by expert panel members as being a key component

of a CDF for delivering innovative change within organisations

DYNAMIC:

“WHOLE OF BUSINESS LIFE-CYCLE COST”

60%

Th

resh

old


APPENDICES

- 349 -

Appendix K: Proposed ‘Innovative Change Decision-making Framework’ (ICDF)

To follow is a draft example of the Inter- / Intranet-based ‘Entrance Page’ to the

proposed ICDF. This is followed by draft examples of a ‘Background (you and

your organisation)’ data collection sheet; and three dynamic assessment sheets

that organisational leaders, end-users and other key stakeholders complete as

part of the decision-making process for delivering innovative change within their

organisation.

APPENDICES

- 350 -

CONGRATULATIONSYOU ARE READY

NOT QUITE READYNEED FOR SOME

IMPROVEMENT

NOT READY AT ALLCRITICAL NEED FOR

IMPROVEMENT

*** ARE WE READY? ***

6672 70

20

80 807275

53

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

CHANGE

INNOVATION

IMPLEMENTATION

CULTURE ("Human Factor")

LEADERSHIP ("Champion")

TRAINING / EDUCATION

KNOWLEDGE SHARING / MANAGEMENT

IMPACT ON END CLIENT / KEY STAKEHOLDER

WHOLE OF BUSINESS LIFECYCLE COST

‘ARE YOU READY TO INTRODUCE

………(PROPOSED INNOVATIVE CHANGE INITIATIVE) ……..

WITHIN YOUR ORGANISATION / TEAM?’

INNOVATIVE CHANGE DECISION-MAKING FRAMEWORK

IS OUR ORGANISATION ‘READY’ TO DELIVER

…… (Proposed Innovative Change)…….?

ENTER

(Example of the ‘Entrance Page’ to the ICDF)

APPENDICES

- 351 -

1) Please fill in the following CONTACT DETAILS.

Your NameCompany NamePost CodePhoneE-mailWeb Address

2) What is the HIGHEST level of EDUCATION that you have completed?

(Please choose)

3) What is the title of your CURRENT POSITION?

4) HOW LONG have you been working in your present position?

(Please choose)

(Please choose)

IF YOU ANSWERED NO : kindly proceed to Q7

5) DO YOU HAVE ANY EXPERIENCE …in leading or taking part in implementing a change initiative within your work environment?

BACKGROUND(YOU & YOUR ORGANISATION)

The information you provide will remain CONFIDENTIAL required purely for Statistical purposes

‘DECISION-MAKING FRAMEWORK’

ARE WE READY?

For the Delivery of….. (Proposed Innovative Change) ….. Within Our Organisation

Some High School or Less

High School Graduate

College / TAFE

Diploma Certification

Bacheloors Degree

Post-Graduate Degree

Doctorate

Less than 1 Year

1-2 Years

2-5 Years 5-10 Years More than 10 Years

YES

NO

Note: to be completed by organisational leaders, decision-makers, end-users and other key stakeholders - as part of their decision-making process for delivering innovative change within

their organisation)

(Example of the ‘Background’ data collection sheet of the ‘ICDF’)

APPENDICES

- 352 -

NOTE: These are hyperlinks to the proposed ‘Innovative Change Delivery Guide’ (ICDG) (Appendix M:) – providing

additional information, definitions, terms used, detailed and relative good-practice recommendations, tips, guidelines, case-

study examples; etc. to help complete the ICDF

(Example of the ‘Summary Page’ of the ICDF)

APPENDICES

- 353 -

(Example of Two ‘Data Collection Pages’ of the ICDF)

NOTE: These are hyperlinks to the proposed ‘Innovative Change Delivery Guide’ (ICDG) (Appendix M:) – providing

additional information, definitions, terms used, detailed and relative good-practice recommendations, tips, guidelines,

case-study examples; etc. to help complete the ICDF

APPENDICES

- 354 -

Appendix L: Proposed ‘Innovative Change Delivery Analysis’ (ICDA)

#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7AVERAGE

RATING (#1 - 7)

1 CHANGE 50 83 75 79 80 72 77 74 %2 INNOVATION 60 68 76 76 68 64 60 67 %3 IMPLEMENTATION 67 81 80 76 71 80 61 74 %4 CULTURE ("Human Factor") 65 66 68 67 70 55 74 66 %5 LEADERSHIP ("Champion") 65 66 68 67 70 55 74 66 %6 TRAINING / EDUCATION 25 29 30 21 24 27 24 26 %7 KNOWLEDGE SHARING / MANAGEMENT 70 90 78 80 80 65 90 79 %8 IMPACT ON END CLIENT BUSINESS 80 60 75 80 90 70 90 78 %9 WHOLE OF BUSINESS LIFECYCLE COST 80 80 25 80 90 60 80 71 %

***FINAL RESULTS***NINE DECISION-MAKING DYNAMICS

RESPONDENTS(Management, employees, key stakeholders, etc.)

***INNOVATIVE CHANGE DELIVERY ANALYSIS***

(80 - 100 %)VERY - MOST

RELEVANT


RELEVANT


RELEVANCE

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

CHANGE

INNOVATIO

N

IMPLEMENTATIO

N

CULTURE ("Human

Factor")

LEADERSHIP ("Cham

pion")

TRAININ

G / EDUCATIO

N

KNOWLEDGE SHARING / M

ANAGEMENT

IMPACT O

N END CLIENT B

USINESS

WHOLE OF B

USINESS LIFECYCLE C

OST

AR

E W

E R

EAD

Y? (%

)

#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 AVERAGE RATING (#1 - 7)

A

B WEAKEST Dynamic within our Organisation

STRONGEST Dynamic within our Organisation

(Example of the ‘Final Results Page’ for the proposed ICDA)

APPENDICES

- 355 -

Appendix M: Proposed ‘Innovative Change Delivery Guide’ (ICDG)

Three draft extracts from the above ICDG follow:

A GUIDE TO DELIVER…..(Proposed Innovative Change) …..IN YOUR ORGANISATION

CONGRATULATIONSYOU ARE READY

NOT QUITE READYNEED FOR SOME

IMPROVEMENT

NOT READY AT ALLCRITICAL NEED FOR

IMPROVEMENT

INNOVATIVE CHANGE DELIVERY GUIDE

*** HOW TO GET OUR ORGANISATION READY ***

6672 70

20

80 807275

53

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

CHANGE

INNOVATIO

N

IMPLEMENTATIO

N

CULTURE ("Human

Factor")

LEADERSHIP ("Cham

pion")

TRAININ

G / EDUCATIO

N

KNOWLEDGE SHARING / M

ANAGEMENT

IMPACT O

N END CLIENT / K

EY STAKEHOLDER

WHOLE OF B

USINESS LIFECYCLE C

OST

Supplementary support; good-practice guidelines; relevant (successful as well as unsuccessful) delivery of innovative change case study examples; tried and tested processes, frameworks, models, and recommendations;

‘stop-and-check innovative change decision-making indicators’; delivery ‘do’s and don’ts’; as well as access to internationally recognised industry experts; innovative change specialists; up-to-date network platforms...etc.

(Example of the ‘Entrance Page’ to the proposed ICDG)

APPENDICES

- 356 -

ICDG Extract One:

WHAT IS INNOVATIVE CHANGE?

INNOVATIVE CHANGE(i) Innovative Change (See Implementing Innovative Change ) - Technology: Defined - Innovation: Defined (See Types of Innovation ) - Change: Defined - Innovation-Driven Change: Defined

(ii) Innovative Change: Need (See Need for Change )

(iii) Innovative Change: Challenges (See Barriers to Change and Seven Factors That Challenge Innovative Change )

(iv) Innovative Change: Business Opportunities (See Six Drivers of Change )

(v) Innovative Change: Influence on Culture (See Culture: IInnovativeCulture )

(i) IINNOVATIVE CHANGE (See Implementing Innovation-Driven Change)

To help define the term 'innovation-driven change' it is important to understand that technology and innovation are ‘related concepts’ representing different ‘concerns’ (White M.A. and Bruton G.D. 2007) p16, where innovation is portrayed essentially as a way industry organisations and project teams create and apply a new technology, product or process. A wide range of innovative technologies dominate today’s global industries, businesses and personal worlds, where people find it more and more difficult to function without them. Furthermore, many industry participants are being 'seduced' by these new and innovative technologies, essentially ‘blinding’ them from focusing on the real and essential reasons to readily employ an innovation-driven change initiative (Hee H. 1998).

(a) Technology: DefinedThe term technology is defined by (White M.A. and Bruton G.D. 2007) p16 in a number of ways:

‘…the process used to change inputs into outputs’

‘…the application of knowledge to perform work’

‘…the theoretical and practical knowledge, skills and artefacts that can be used to develop products as well as their production and delivery system’

‘…the technical means people use to improve their surroundings’

‘…the application of science, especially to industrial or commercial objectives, the entire body of methods and materials used to achieve such objectives’

Yet the following definition for technology tends to encapsulate all of the above descriptions:

‘…the practical implementation of learning and knowledge by individuals and organisations to aid human endeavour…it is the knowledge, products, processes, tools, and systems used in the creation of goods or in the provision of services’ (White M.A. and Bruton G.D. 2007) p16

(b) Innovation: Defined

Innovation, in essence, is simply another form of change , albeit more sophisticated and specialised in nature (Robins 1998) p646. It essentially entails the application of a new idea to improve, for example, an existing product, process or service. This action inturn results in some form of change taking place, by moving away from the old way of doing things and embracing a new and improved way of doing the same thing. Inevitably, there is a wide and diverse range of definitions for the term innovation and the following attempt to incorporate the critical process elements of innovation itself:

‘…the creation of new knowledge and turning ideas into valuable products and services’ (Skyrme 1998)

‘…developing and implementing a new idea in an applied setting’ (RICS and Salford-University 2007) p3

‘…the effective generation and implementation of a new idea, which enhances overall organisational performance’ (RICS and Salford-University 2007) p9

‘…the process whereby new and improved products, processes, materials and services are developed and transferred to a market where they are appropriate’ (White M.A. and Bruton G.D. 2007) p21

( ) Ch D fi d

A GUIDE TO DELIVER INNOVATIVE CHANGE IN YOUR ORGANISATION

NOTE: The blue texts are hyperlinks to the contents of the proposed ICDG

(below)

APPENDICES

- 357 -

ICDG Extract Two:

"COST vs. TIMING vs. DIFFICULTY" OF CHANGE

"COST vs. TIMING vs. DIFFICULTY" OF CHANGE

(i) THREE CHANGE TACTICS The timing of adopting an innovation-driven change initiative, framework, process or solution in an organisation or project team environment could determine the success or failure (difficulty) of that change. To follow are three ‘tactics’ to help determine (a) a more timely (Figure 1) and (b) more cost effective (Figure 2) implementation strategy. Figure 2 confirms that the construction industry has to realise the cost of delaying any technological or innovation-driven change initiative is in many cases not only inconvenient, but often, catastrophic (Black J. S. and Gregersen H. B. 2002).

Figure 1: Difficulty of Change

Adapted from (Black J. S. and Gregersen H. B. 2002)

Figure 2: Cost of Change

Adapted from (Black J. S. and Gregersen H. B. 2002)

To follow is a brief explanation for each of the three change tactics (Figure1) and (Figure 2):

(a) Anticipatory Change o This is the most difficult of the three approaches to start and finish due to difficulty in sensing future threats and opportunities or what unpredictable course they may take. o Requires organisations to look ahead and predict change in advance (anticipating the need for change). o Unknown return on investments is also a major reason why executives avoid this process. o However, if executed correctly, this change tactic can present the greatest potential benefits and lowest cost to a firm o When change involves steep and ongoing learning, then the sooner a firm starts changing, the greater will be the firm’s advantage over slower-to-change competitors (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Competitive Advantage

REACTIVE Change

CRISIS Change

Most Difficult

Difficult

Easiest Time

Difficulty

ANTICIPATORY Change

Least

Moderate

Most ANTICIPATORY Change

REACTIVE Change

CRISIS Change

Time

Cost

"COST vs. TIMING vs. DIFFICULTY" OF CHANGE(i) Three Change Tactics - Anticipatory Change - Reactive Change - Crisis Change



(below)

APPENDICES

- 358 -

ICDG Extract Three:

FACTORS THAT HELP DRIVE INNOVATIVE CHANGE

SIX DRIVERS OF CHANGE(See Need for Change )

(i) Motivation - Two Types of Motivation - Motivation and Incentive Schemes - Eight Motivational Strategies

(ii) Threats and Opportunities

(iii) Need Factor: ‘What’s in it for me?’ - Theory of Needs - Hierarchy of Needs

(iv) Expectancy Theory

(v) Rewarding Change Efforts - Rewards and Compensation = Success

(vi) Respecting People - Looking After People - Benefits Gained from Respecting People

SIX DRIVERS OF CHANGE(see Innovation-Driven Change: Business Opportunities)

There are no quick fixes to help deliver long-term change and excellence in today’s competitive and ever changing construction industry environment. The need to recognise the endless threats and opportunities that tend to drive or motivate construction industry organisations and project teams to readily adapt the implementation process of an innovation-driven change initiative is an inevitable and ongoing challenge.

(i) Motivation The term motivation is defined here as:

‘…the willingness to exert high levels of effort toward organisational goals, conditioned by the effort’s ability to satisfy some individual need’ (Robins 1998) p168

The three key elements in the above definition (effort, organisational goals, and need) are discussed below:

o Effort: Also referred to as a measure of intensity, where the more one is motivated the more effort is relayed back into ones job or role. o Organisational Goal: For the organisation to fully benefit from these high levels of effort, leaders are to ensure that these enhanced levels of job-performances are ‘channelled’ directly towards, and consistent with, the organisations overall goals and objectives. That is to say change leaders and senior managers must consider the quality of their efforts as well as their levels of intensity. o Need: Refers to an employees standpoint towards an outcome of an effort (in meeting an organisational goal or objective), and making it appear either attractive or worth doing for themselves - see "what’s in it for me?"

(a) Two Types of MotivationThe need to identify and acknowledge the various crisis and opportunity factors that an organisation or project team are inevitably faced with during the implementation of a an innovation-driven change initiative are echoed in (Whyte J. 2002), stating there are two types motivational outcomes:

o Short-Term Motivation: This method of motivating people to change occurs when employees or team members are confronted with a real or perceived threat, such as, job security, increasing competition, etc., which inturn motivate short-term behaviours. o Long-Term Motivation: The second means of motivation is realised through real or perceived opportunities, such as, improved profitability, greater productivity, increased employee development, etc., which inturn motivate long-term behavioural change within an organisation or project team.

(b) Motivation and Incentive Schemes

‘…different things motivate different people differently at different times‘ (Grisham and Walker 2006) p229

The successful integration of innovation-driven change solutions requires employees :



(below)


- 359 -

© Copyright Achim Weippert

2010

All Rights Reserved

Documents

‘A CONCEPTUAL DECISION-MAKING FRAMEWORK FOR THE … · A Conceptual Decision-Making Framework for the Delivery of Innovative Change in Organisations vii TABLE OF CONTENTS DECLARATION