Change management and its results

7/24/2019 Change management and its results

1/5


2/5

Interfaces

infjEEEL

Vol.

40,

No.

2,

March-April

2010,

pp.

159-162

DOI

0.l287/inte.l090.0473

ISSN 092-2102 issN1526-551X 0

1

002

1

159

@ 2010

INFORMS

Hi PeopleSkills: nsuring rojectuccess

A

Change

Management erspective

Robert

.

Levasseur

Waiden

University,

t.

Augustine,

lorida

2084,

[email protected]

This s one

in

a seriesof

articles bout the mosteffective

odels,methods,

nd

processes

f

organization

development

OD),

also

known s

changemanagement, discipline

hat

ffers

much o

professionals

ntent

on

solving

eal-

orld

problems.

ecause

t

is

based on a

systemic

iew of

organizations,

D includes

he

whole

universe f

fuzzy eople

ssues

hat

ncreasingly

etermine

he uccess rfailure feffortso

mplement

otherwise

lawless

echnicalolutions.

his article xamines

roject

uccess

rates,

uggests

easons or

roject

failure,

nd

provides

deas for

ramaticallymproving

he dds

of

project

uccess ased

on established

hange

managementrinciplesndprocesses.

Key

words:

roject

management;

eadership;hangemanagement;rganization

evelopment.

often

do

projects

fail?

According

to

Rubinstein

2007),

almost two-thirds

f

infor-

mation

echnology

IT)

projects

ail. This

startling

statistic

ight

ot

apply

acrossthe

board; however,

evena

project

ailure

ate f

half his

numberwould

seem

to be

too

high

price

o

pay

for

mplementing

needed

organizational

hanges.

houldn't

rganiza-

tions

strive or

ero

defects

n

project

management,

as

many

do in

product

manufacturing

nd service

delivery?

Causes

of

Project

Failure

What are

the causes

of

these

project

ailures?

Are

they rimarily

ue to technical

roblems,

r are

they

rooted

n

people

ssues,

uch

s

seemingly

ntractable

resistance

o

change?

n a

study

of

42 IT

projects,

McManus

nd

Wood-Harper

2007)

found

hat tech-

nical

causal

factors

ccount(ed)

or 5

percent

f the

project

ailure

ate

p.

39).

The

remaining

5

per-

centwerebecauseofwhat hey ermedmanagement

causalfactors

p.

39)

in

other

words,

eople

ssues.

When

hey

onsider

T-enabled

hange,

many eople

see

managers'

nd

IT

specialists'

elief

n the

mag-

ical

power

of

IT as the

root cause of

project

ail-

ure

Markus

nd

Benjamin

997,

p.

55).

That

project

failure

ates remain

high,

lthough

his

magic

bul-

let

theory

f

change

s

widely

understood

nd does

not

appear

to

work,

s

disturbing

ut not

surprising

to someone

amiliar

ith

hange

management.

ech-

nical

specialists

nd

managers,

lthough

heymight

have the est

f

ntentions,

end o

have

very

ew

pro-

cesses

or toolsto use

to

manage

the human ide

of

projectmplementation.

herefore,

hey ely

n their

common

ense

and communication

kills to

facili-

tate

hange.

adly,

hese re

generally

ot

enough

o

ensure

he success

of technical

e.g.,

T-enabled)

r

nontechnicalrojects.

To

address

thesenontechnical

ausal

factors

n

project

ailure,

e need

to

know what

they

re.

An

analysis

f hree

tudies

f

project

ailure

Kappelman

et

al.

2006,

Keil

et al.

1998,

Zwikael

and Globerson

2006)

suggests

ome

answers.

Table

1

shows

10 of

the

highest-ranked

ontechnical

ausal

factors

men-

tioned

n

these

hree tudies.

he studies

re coded

A

for

Kappelman

t

al.

(2006,

p.

33),

B

for

Keil et al.

(1998,

.

78),

nd

C for wikael

nd Globerson

2006,

p.

3435).

Given hese

auses,

what an

we do to

dramatically

improve herateofprojectuccess?The answer s to

use

change

management

rinciples

nd

processes

o ddress

these

nd related

ontechnical

easons

or

projectailure,

s

specialists

n

organization

evelopment

o each

day

when

theyacilitate

hange.

lthough

his heoretical

nswer

is

simple,

t s not

very

ractical

olution

o

the

rob-

lem,

given

the time

nd

expense

required

o

master

the

rt f

hange

management,

ven

for

hose

nclined

to

do so. So

what an else

can

we do?

159

This content downloaded from 161.23.84.10 on Sat, 06 Feb 2016 20:41:26 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/5

Levasseun

People

kills:

nsuringroject

uccess

160

Interfaces

0(2),

p.

159-162,

2010NFORMS

Nontechnicalausal actor

ABC

Lack

f

opmanagementupport

1 1 2

Failureogain ser ommitment 2

Project

anager

annot

ffectively

ead

eam 3

No

process

or

ontrolling

he

hange

4

1

Stakeholders

ot nvolved

n

he

rocess

5 4 5

Failure

o

manage

nd ser

xpectations

5

15

Weakeammemberommitment

8

1

Breakdown

n takeholderommunication 9 9

Lack

f

key

takeholder

articipation

n

meetings

1

Conflictetweenser

epartments

1

Table

:

This

able hows 0

major

ontechnicaleasons

or

roject

ail-

ure nd heir

mportance

s each

tudy

ankshem.

The

practical

olution s twofold.

irst,

ine

man-

agers, project managers,

nd others nvolved in

implementing

ew methodsmust understand he

potentially

ramatic

mpact

hat

hangemanagement

principles

nd

practices

an have on

project

uccess,

thus

motivating

hem o

acquire

ew soft

i.e.,

eople)

skills nd behave

differently.

econd,

hey

must earn

how to

apply

some

simple

nd

elegant pproaches

to

facilitatinghange

from

he

changemanagement

expert's

oolkit. he

purpose

f this

rticle s to offer

insights

nto both

areas to

provide

managers

with

both the motivationnd

tools

they

need to

ensure

their rojects'uccess.

The

Potential or

mproving

Project

uccess

Trained

s

a

physicist,

urt

Lewin was one of the

most nfluentialf

the

early

ocial scientistsn the

field f

group

ehavior. e contributed

any mpor-

tant

heories nd

tools for

organizational

hange

to

the

field f

OD-changemanagement,

ncluding roup

dynamics,

orcefield

analysis, three-step

hange

model

i.e.,

unfreezing, oving,

nd

refreezing),

nd

the action

research

methodology.

o

professionalsin

OD-change

management,

he nnovative ontribu-

tions of

Kurt

Lewin

are as

important

s those of

Abraham

Maslow,

who

developed

the

hierarchy

f

needs

theory,

nd

Douglas McGregor,

ho

subse-

quently

evelopedTheory

X

-

Theory

Y

based on

Maslow's

theory,

re to

managers.

Inhis

article

Group

Decision nd

Social

Change

(Gold

1999),

ewin

eported

n

an

early

roundbreak-

ing experiment

n

group

behavior onducted n

the

mid-1940s;

group

fworkers

ho chose

s a

group

o

improve

heir

erformance

howed almost mmedi-

ately

n

improvement

f

approximately

0

percent

n

their evel of

productivity

ompared

with heir ver-

age

levelof

productivityrior

o the

xperiment.

his

experiment

lso illustratedhe

permanency

f

group

decisions;

he

group's verage

erformance

emained

at the ame

high

evel

and

showed

no

sign

of dimin-

ishing

ine

months fter he tart f the

xperiment.

This

arly xperiment

n

group

ehavior

peaks

o

a

general henomenon

ithwhichwe are ll familiar

the

power

of

groups

to

achieve

a

goal

when their

membersre motivated

o

act

n

unison.

What

mpact

might

his

ower

of

groups

have

f

we could harness

itto mproveheodds ofprojectuccess?

To answer his

uestion,

etus

imagine

hat

roject

managers

re able to

successfully

pply

the

change

management oncepts

escribed

n

the next ection

to their

rojects.

ssuming

hat

hangemanagement

methods

directly

ddress about two-thirds f the

causes of IT

project

failure

i.e.,

the nontechnical

causal

factors),

hen heir uccessful

pplication

ould

dramaticallymprove

he rate of

IT

project

uccess

(Table2).

As Table

2

shows,

the effective

pplication

f

change management

methodshas the

potential

o

improvehe urrentrojectuccess ate i.e., bout 3

percent)

y

as much s 200

percent.

ven

f

only

50

percent

ffectiven

average,

heuse of

change

man-

agement

methods

y project

managers

ould dou-

ble the success rate of

IT-enabled

projects.

Given

the

high

ffectivenessf

hangemanagement-enabled

projects,

hich

rough pproximation

ased on

per-

sonal

experience

would

estimate

t

well above 80

percent,

his

evel of

project

uccess

i.e.,

67

percent)

would eem

more

hat

easonable o

expect

or

hange

management-augmented

T-enabled

rojects.

Change anagement ITprojectuccess Improvementn T

effectiveness

%)

rate

%)

project

uccess ate

%)

0

33 0

25

50

50

50

67

100

75

83

150

100

100 200

Table

:

Thedata show he

potential

mpact

f

changemanagement

methodsn

t

project

uccess.



4/5

Levasseun

People

kills:

Ensuring roject

uccess

Interfaces

0(2),

p.

159-162,

2010 NFORMS

161

Change

anagement

Non-IT

roject Improvement

n

non-IT

effectiveness

%)

success ate

%)

project

uccess ate

%)

0 67 0

25

75

12

50

83

25

75

92

38

100

100 50

Table :

The data show

he

potential

mpact

f

changemanagement

methodsn

non-IT

roject

uccess.

Similarly,

f

we assume

that

the current ate of

project

uccess

s twice

as

high

fornon-IT

projects

(i.e.,

7

percent)

s for T-enabled

rojects,

he

oppor-

tunity

ora

major mprovement

n

project

uccess

because

of

applying

hangemanagement

ethods s

still

uite

ubstantial

Table

3).

We

hope

that

this

analysis

makes a

convincing

enough

ase

for he

effect

hat

hange

management

methods

an

have on

project

uccess

hat t motivates

line

and

project

managers

o learn

more

bout these

methods.

n

the

next

ection,

e examine

ome

imple

yet

legant

deas

that hesemotivated

hange gents

might

se to

improve

heir

ateof

successful

roject

implementation.

ChangeManagementdeas for

Improving

roject

uccess

Trying

o distill

rich set

of

change

management

principles,rocesses,

nd

practices

nto

a few

key

guidelines

hat o not

oversimplify

hem

s

challeng-

ing.

Nevertheless,

ur

objective

s

to

demystify

hese

very

mportant

ools

for

managing

he

human ide of

any

project

mplementation

o

that

rojectmanagers

and other

hange

gents

with ittle r

no

formal D-

change

management

raining

ill chose

to

use them

and

(or)

engage

OD-change

managementrofession-

als for ssistance; herefore,his section ontains

description

f

five

undamental

nderlying

oncepts

of

changemanagement,

ritten

n

ayman's

erms.

Implementation

egins

on

Day

1.

Viewing

a

change

ffort

s

a

sequential

rocess

n

which

small

group

evelops

n

implementation

trategy

ndepen-

dent fothers

n

the

rganization

nd

tries o

sell tto

individuals

nthe

rganization

ffected

y

the

hange

is

an

almost ertain

rescription

or

ailure.

broader,

more

systemic

iew of

change

s crucial o

project

success.

Viewing

hange

rom

systemic erspective

means

acknowledging

nd

embracing

he

ntercon-

nectedness fthe

people

affected

y

the

change,

nd

argues trongly

or

n

implementationtrategy

hat

emphasizes

arly

nvolvementf stakeholders

n

the

process,

n

lieu of

top-down, ne-way

ommunica-

tion,

s the

primary

eans

f

nfluencing

takeholder

attitudesnd behavior

t theonset f the

project.

People Support

What

They

Help

to

Create.

I

learned

his

ittle

earl

of

changemanagement

is-

dom from

very

wise

professor

henI was

pur-

suing

a master's

degree

n

management

Levasseur

2007).

t

succinctlyaptures

he ssence

fthe

hange

process namely,hat hebestwayto overcomeesis-

tance o

change

s to

involve

eople

affected

y

t

n

the

hange rocess

s

early

nd

often

s

possible.

his

corollary

o thefirst

oint

about

beginning

mple-

mentation

n

the first

ay

of

the

project

rovides

rationale

or

why

nvolvement

s such

an

important

element

n

an effective

hange

trategy.

Two-Way

ommunication

s Essential.

Although

not

sufficient

n and of

itself o ensure

the effec-

tive

mplementation

f

change

roject,

egular,

on-

est,

two-way

ommunication

s,

nonetheless,

rucial

to the successof a changeeffort.veryone nows

that

managers

o not

ike

urprises.

he same

s

true

for

employees

nd other

takeholders

n

a

change

effort.

t the

outset,

ffective

wo-way

ommunica-

tion

engages

both

the

senders

i.e.,

project

eaders)

and receivers

i.e.,

takeholders)

n a

meaningful

ia-

logue

about

thevision

and

scope

of

the

proposed

change

effort

nd its

organizational

nd

personal

implications,

hereby

educing

atural

esistance

o

change.

his

happens

ecause

meaningful

xchange

(i.e.,

wo-way

ommunication)

ends

a

clear

message

that he

people

ffected

y

the

hange,

nd

theirdeas

and

feelings,

re

mportant;

hus,tfostershe evelof

engagement

nd nvolvement

eeded

o

enable

take-

holders

o

address

their oncerns

atisfactorily

nd

develop

a sense

of commitment

o

the

project.

As

project

mplementation

rogresses,

ctive,

wo-way

communication

eeps

vital nformation

nd

progress

about

project

oals,

bjectives,

nd milestones

lowing

throughout

he

system

ffected

y

the

change

ffort.

This reinforces

he notion

hat he

stakeholders

nd



5/5

Levasseur.

People

Skills:

Ensuring

roject

uccess

162

Interfaces

0(2),

p.

159-162,

2010

NFORMS

project

eaders

are

engaged

n a

joint

undertaking,

which

osters

he

kindof concern or

roject

uccess

necessary

o

address

nd

collectively

olve

problems

when

hey

rise.

Attendance

s

Not

Agreement.Manyproject

man-

agers

mistakettendance

t

meetings

ith acit

gree-

ment

with

project oals.

Hence,

they

feel

ustified

in

assigning

esponsibility

or

follow-up

ctions

o

meeting

ttendees.

nfortunately,

ecausethis

radi-

tional

op-downmanagement

ehavior

ends o cre-

ate resentment

nd increase esistance

o

change,

t s

often

ounterproductive.

ssigning

asks o

meeting

attendees oes

not

guarantee

ommitment;

t

gener-

allyproduces

he

pposite

ehavior.

n

contrast,

om-

mitted eoplevolunteer or mportantssignments.

This makes

the task of

project

eaders

who

begin

actively ngaging

takeholders

n

the

process

from

day

one of he

project

much asier. or

hem,

t s suf-

ficiento ask for olunteers

nd watch s committed

and

empowered

meeting

ttendees

oluntarily

eter-

minewho

will take

responsibility

or

ompleting ey

action

tems.

Collaboration s

the

Key.

n

case

you

have not

yet figured

ut the fundamental

rinciple

hat

dis-

tinguishes

ffective

hange

ffortsrom ess success-

ful

ones,

t

is collaboration.

ollaborations essen-

tialto theeffectivepplication f the wide array f

changemanagement

nterventionsvailable

to OD-

change

management rofessionals.

f

you

believe

n

the

power

of collaboration

aka

teamwork,

articipa-

tion,

ollective

ffort,

ooperation,

tc.)

o harness he

inherent

ower

of

groups,

hen

you

understand

hy

implementation

ust

begin

on

day

one,

whypeople

support

what

hey elp

to

create,

hy wo-way

om-

munications essential o effective

hange,

nd

why

commitments

a

benefit hat

ngaged, mpowered

stakeholders

ffer,

ather han

omething

hat

roject

leadersdemand f them.

Lewin'sModel Shows

the

Way.

Although

hefive

fundamental

hangemanagementoncepts

escribed

above

can,

if

embraced nd

applied, mprove

he

effectivenessf

any prospective

hange gent, hey

work estwhen

hey

re een s elements f

change

process

or

model. The most

simple

and

elegant

of

these is Kurt

Lewin's

three-step hange

model

unfreezing, oving,

nd

refreezing

Gold

1999,

Lev-

asseur

2001).

When

viewed

through

he lens

of

Lewin's

model,

hese

five

oncepts

ddress

he

three

phases

of

changedirectly.

n

my experience

s

a

project

eaderand a facilitatorf

planned,

ystemic

change,

hebest

way

to

nitiate,

acilitate,

nd ensure

project

uccess

s

(1)

to

unfreeze

y

engaging

take-

holders

arly

nd

actively

n

a collaborative

ialogue

about the

change

effort;

2)

to initiate

nd sustain

movement

y continuing

he

high

evel of

two-way

communication,

oint

action

planning,

nd shared

implementation

ffort;

nd

(3)

to refreeze

o a

higher

level of

individual

nd

organizational

erformance

and

satisfaction

y reinforcing

he commitmento

project

uccess

based on continued

ollaboration

or

theduration ftheprojectndbeyond.

Conclusion

In

this

rticle,

e examined

roject

uccess

ates,

ug-

gested

easons or

roject

ailure,

nd

provided

deas

for

dramaticallymproving

he odds of

project

uc-

cess based

on established

hangemanagement

rin-

ciples

and

processes.Hopefully,

his

will

encourage

managers

nd

project

eaders

n

all arenas o embrace

changemanagement

methods

nd set much

higher

expectations

or

roject

uccess.

References

Gold, M,

ed. 1999.

The

Complete

ocial

Scientist:

Kurt ewinReader.

American

Psychological

Association.

Washington.

C.

Kappelman,

L.

A.,

R.

McKeeman,

L.

Zhang.

2006.

Early warning

signs

of

T

project

ailure: he dominant

dozen.

Inform.ystems

Management 3(4)

31-36.

Keil, M.,

P.

E.

Cule,

K.

Lyytinen,

.

C. Schmidt.1998.

A

framework

for

dentifying

oftware

roject

isks.Comm.ACM

41(11)

76-83.

Levasseur,

R. E. 2001.

People

skills:

Change management

tools

Lewin's

change

model.

Interfaces

1(4)

71-73.

Levasseur,

R.

E. 2007.

People

skills:

Marketing

OR/MS-

A

people

problem. nterfaces

7(4)

383-384.

Markus,

M.

L.,

R. I.

Benjamin.

1997. The

magic

bullet

theory

of

IT-enabled transformation.loanManagement ev.38(2) 55-68.

McManus,

J.,

T.

Wood-Harper.

007.

Understanding

he sources of

information

ystemsproject

failure.

Management

ervices

1(3)

38-13.

Rubinstein,

D.

2007. Standish

Group report:

There's

less devel-

opment

chaos

today. Software evelopment

imes

March 1).

Retrieved

August

10,

2009,

http://www.sdtimes.com/content/

article.aspx?ArticleID=30247.

Zwikael,

O.,

S. Globerson. 2006. From critical success

factors o

critical

success

processes.

Internat.

J.

ProductionRes.

44(17)

3433-3449.


Documents

Change management and its results