9. Depth Annotated Bibliography
Bjoernsson, Sharig & Taylor (2002). Bridging the Innovation Gap in the AEC Industry-
CIFE Seed Proposal 2003. Computer Times, “Hardhats go High Tech,” p. 39-40
Bridging the Innovation Gap is about the poor quality of communication between various sectors and sub-sectors in the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction industries (AEC), and the results of poor quality. Bjoernsson, Sharig & Taylor (2002) have proposed a case study together with pre and post interviews and surveys to find out how to overcome the AEC innovation communication and learning gap between these sub-sectors of the AEC.
The problem the authors have identified specifically with target on the computer-aided design (CAD) software tools, was that learning in the AEC sector has not transferred sufficiently between departments and cross-sub-sector organizations. This, according to Bjoernsson, Sharig & Taylor (2002), has created apparently a communication gap associated “laggard” in the industry that results now in inefficiencies.
The authors have developed their theory of the innovation gap based on other peer reviewed literature and research in the AEC industries. The innovation gap, as they use this term, refers to poor communication between organizations and cross-teams. In other words, once a person may have learned of issues that could possibly lead to improving the process efficiency and the collaboration between and within a project in the AEC, there is the “laggard” present which keeps them from sharing valuable information.
Gappmaier, M.
(1997). Process prototyping-A methodology for participatory business
process design. Hofer, S.; Doucek P. (eds.); IDIMT’97 – 5th Interdisciplinary
Information Management Talks, Oldenbourg, München/Wien 1997
Gappmaier (1997) introduced a concept of solution orientation, reflection, and participation. He performed research that measured contribution and performance increases based on customer feedback. He developed a visual aid that he named the Picture Card Design Model (PCDM).
PCDM consists of color coded cards, which are used in business process development, process mapping, and project management. This, and the various concepts introduced, improve trust and strengthen relationships, which also demonstrated increase in participation and productivity. The outcome was of greater satisfaction among employees and increased loyalty.
In Gappmaier’s proposal, the three foundational theories of solution orientation, reflection, and participation led to change adaptability, improved cross-boundary relationships, and increased quantitatively communication of tasks, mission statements and visions between stakeholders. Gappmaier introduced a video analysis (VA) concept to prototype processes before they are implemented. This is supposed to cut down the IT industry project management deficit referenced by Kendra and Taplin (2004). Building trust among employees and leaders was the key to effective VA implementation.
Gappmaier’s (1997) credibility is founded on over 10-years research in organizational business process management. He based his findings in his article on applied methods such as case studies of over 250 companies and over 800 employees. Some of these companies named were Novell, Unisys, Porsche, and Brigham Young University, and others, all over in the world.
Goodman, J. and Truss, C. (2004). The medium and the message: communicating
effectively during a major change initiative. Journal of Change Management.
Taylor & Francis Ltd. 4: 3, 217-228.
The article “The medium and the message” is about the methods of communicating the content. How do we effectively communicate instructions that lead to effective leadership during a change initiative? The authors have performed a case study involving 2 organizations using a variety of communication methods during change initiatives to find out how effective these were during these change initiatives. Communication strategies were applied during such change initiatives to achieve improved followership which the authors Goodman and Truss (2004) referred to as “commitment, morale and retention”. The method is about the timing of the content application and the media is about how the content is being communicated. Both of these factors, according to Goodman and Truss (2004) play a role in effective leadership especially during change initiatives.
The study theory was based on prior peer reviewed literature about communication during change initiatives. However these articles, as the authors indicated, did not demonstrate well the effectiveness of various communication styles and the methods of transmitting them during a change. The authors therefore decided to present an exploratory case study wherein they would use 2 companies that recently went through a major change in which they conducted the study.
The study was conducted with document review, unstructured interviews to identify the basic change, “semi-structured interviews with senior managers to explore the design and purpose of the communication strategy”, and a questionnaire of a random selection of employees. They authors questioned “two-thirds or employees in each organization to uncover reactions to the change communication strategies”.
In this Depth section, it is relevant to determine the methods that might best result in leadership effectiveness during a change initiative as it is proposed that communication plays a big role in making a change initiative effective in an organization. And this article demonstrates good insight in what communication information is best transmitted at what time, with what methods, and to whom during the change initiatives. In both organizations, during the study, the authors have found that poor communication versus increased communication with the following staff, leaders versus followers among senior managers and applicators, plays a role in employee retention, morale, and getting the change job done while the organization remains and perhaps even increases its competitive advantage.
Greenly, D. and Carnall, C. (2001). Workshops as a technique for strategic change.
Journal of Change Management. Henry Stewart Publications. 2: 1, 33-46.
Greenly and Carnall (2001) reported the evaluation of a workshop as a technique to improve change among organizations receiving consulting services from Hewlett Packard (HP) Professional Services Organization (PSO). PSO is a HP owned consulting firm. The change HP expected was that their consultants be more outcome-focused for client needs’ rather than pushing pre-developed product onto clients, with emphasis on client needs and their participation, having the clients participate in the design of their product.
Participation, such as coming up with their own change process designs in workshops rather than isolated designs by consultants taught and presented to their clients, was sought to be achieved in these workshops. In order to implement this change, HP / PSO designed workshops to have their consultants participate in which Greenly and Carnell (2001) observed and studied and reported about in their article.
The study consisted of six structured interviews with senior managers to design the changes that were sought to be achieved in order “to transform the organization”. The workshops’ outlines were then designed with focus on changes in people development practices, coaching, appraisal and rewards management skills, with the focus on achieving client involvement in the design of their own product. The research method conducted was a combined observational study, done by one of the authors who was also involved in the workshops and “two questionnaires, one issued to all 60 participants of the three initial workshops and the second to all 15 facilitators of those three workshops” (Greenly and Carnall, 2001). In addition, questionnaires were applied, one at the beginning and one at the end of the workshop program. Greenly and Carnall (2001) stated that “the workshop design is highly experiential, delivered using a process consisting of metaphor, demonstration, exercise and debrief.
This study is crucial to this KAM paper because it is demonstrating the importance of having clients in change initiatives participate designing their own processes. It is believed as the reader might conclude him/herself that change needs leader buy-it, customer / client buy-in, and that is best achieved through invoking participation. Participation according to Gappmaier (1997), as supported in this article, leads to job satisfaction, retention, increases relationships and job retention, and it will help consultant better understand client needs when designing a process that was meant to cause an organizational major change or help design a product for the client.
Gunasekaran, A., and Kobu, B. (2002). Modeling and analysis of business process
reengineering. International Journal of Production Research. Taylor & Francis
Ltd. 40: 11, 2521-2546.
The authors Gunasekaran and Kobu (2002) discussed in this peer-reviewed article a number of Business Process Reengineering (BPR) modeling concepts. The most popular ones used are Conceptual Models, Simulation Models, Object-oriented models, Integration Definition models, Network Models, and Knowledge-based models. Depending on the situation, the industry, its BPR purpose, who to involve, and what to analyze, one of the modeling methods or more, or one in connection with another, one is used to create the ideal BPR environment for the best chance to experience a positive PBR outcome.
Gunasekara and Kobu (2002) have been trying to understand in this article the various interconnections of organizational process modeling applying these described techniques. The research methods, or the studies in this paper are primarily relied on studies and methodology-research by other renowned researchers and process modeling experts who have discussed in length the various methods. In other words, this paper is a summary of these methods, with however the authors primary objective, namely to trying to understand how BPR methods are carried out while “production procedures and organizational services” have the same business objective.
As King and Aisthorpe (2000) already pointed out that a BPR initiative could fail if two or more sub-process-business goals are in contradiction with each other. Therefore the discussion by Gunasekaran and Kobu (2002) adds an interesting aspect of combining multiple modeling methods with the objective to aligning the business goals in production procedures and organizational services, when often found to be in contradiction with each other. One demands cost reduction and production efficiency and the other requires increased quality and faster delivery.
H. Skipton Leonard, and Maynard Goff, Personnel (2003). Leadership development as
an intervention for organizational transformation: A case study. Consulting
Psychology Journal 55:55-67.
In this case study, H. Skipton (2003) proposed a method and a measure of a leadership development program. Individual and organizational development is said, in this paper, to improve intra-departmental and division participation.
The author analyzed the program development case study based on survey results and a pre-post assessment. It resulted in increased acceptance of change during a CEO fall-out crises and the awareness that top management buy-in of the project is necessary if organizational transformation is to be effective.
This paper supports the theory that change initiatives need CEO support. As part of the discussion, contrary to the surveys used in the study as measurement for effectiveness, it will be argued in this paper that the ultimate measure of organizational transformation effectiveness is the pre-post measurement of customer retention.
Haudan, J. A. (2002). 'E' is for engagement: Transforming your business by transforming
your people. Journal of Change Management 2:255-11.
This article was about gaining organizational participation in leadership during change management by engaging with emotions. Visualization, interactivity, and dialogue were the leadership methods to gain team and follower contribution. But engagement with emotions, according to the authors, created the strongest motivational connection to the performance.
Haudan and MacLean, (2002) based their analysis and conclusions on studies and surveys performed by Root Learning, Inc. and The Gallup Organization. This study discussion relied on other experts’ research.
In the research, this article contributes to learning about task fulfillment and decision-making to lead employees through change, not simply by requesting their obedience, but getting them emotionally engaged in the process of change. It is argued that a change process is subject to leadership, thus the focus on leadership qualifications. This is relevant when it comes to effectiveness, because the more people are proactively engaged in a change process, the more effective, and the more willing they are to be effective followers within the tasks they intend to complete. In other words, this article will identify the motivation and its methods that are effective motivational tools and their measures.
Joffe, M. and Glynn, S. (2002). Facilitating change and empowering employees. Journal
of Change Management 2:369-11.
This article by Joffe and Glynn (2002) offered team and employee participation and collaborating (working together) on common goals. The problem of a pharmaceutical research organization was that it merged with a global organization where its scientist became service providers rather than collaborators. Their leader did not have enough time to spend with the group. Empowerment was withdrawn, communication was unclear, and no opportunities for decision making involvement were given. Dissatisfaction led to increased turnover as a result.
The solution offered was increased leadership involvement, empowerment, and involvement of employees. As a result, the occurring changes were better accepted and led to engagement instead of resentment.
The case study of a pharmaceutical research organization, Genomics Center, was conducted with 71-item questionnaires and surveys of employees’ opinions, and including them into focus groups. For privacy reasons, employees participated in e-surveys on an external webpage. The survey included “closed-ended questions on which respondents were asked to rate their level of agreement…” based on a five-point Likert scale. The survey also included open-ended questions in order to allow for opinion contributions in the employees’ own words.
When change takes place, as discussed already in the breadth section and as suggested by Goleman, et al. (2002), employees who are not included in decision making and who are not empowered, or entrusted with their own work areas and functions, are usually resistant to change. This is exactly what Joffe and Glynn (2002) have found in their case study.
In addition the unclear understanding or conveying of information, vision, and task specifications, caused frustration and conflict according to collaborating authors such as Gappmaier (1997) and Goleman, et al, (2002). It has been even suggested that frustration and conflict at the workplace cause turnover and project sabotage. This suggests that a followership and self-motivated following of directions given by leaders, increases with clear communication, empowerment, and involvement in decision making.
Kendra, K. A., and Taplin, Laura J., US (2004). Change agent competencies for
information technology project managers. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice & Research 56:20-34.
Kendra and Taplin (2004) introduced 5-step project manager (PM) training development program designed to help increase the PM’s human management skills, which they called organizational development skill (OD). They suggested that the reason why in 1997 over $ 145 billion dollars in failed project occurred in the USA, was due to lack of human/OD skills. OD addresses the human side in process development and PM addresses the technical need in process development.
Kendra and Taplin (2004) based their research on studies “of organizational theories”, performed in “project management innovation and design by Meredith & Mantel, (2000)”, and in reference to the ODBOK and PMBOK, from the Project Management Institute (PMI). They also analyzed data from the Standish Group, which identified PM effectiveness and the data in respect to the annual IT industry related losses due to PM skill deficiencies.
OD skills compared to Goleman’s et al (2002) approach to address human need, build relationships, empower them, and develop/train them, are according to Kendra and Taplin (2002) similar. PM skill development focuses on technical knowledge. In the paper, it will be compared how long-term and short-term leadership methodologies interface by addressing human needs versus withdrawing human process support. It is believed that both is needed in achieving followership, but PM applied without OD balance, could result in human relationship conflicts, reduced relationship building, and therefore less followership, even higher turnover ratios.
Ki-Jin Jang, (2003). A model decomposition approach for a manufacturing enterprise in
Business Process Reengineering. International Journal of Computer Integrated
Manufacturing. Taylor & Francis Ltd. 16: 3, 210-218.
Key findings of the article are that the research-author presented a decision making tool that would help “determine what further changes to Business Process Reengineering (BPR) must be performed“ (Ki-Jin Jang, 2003). The author improved the Integration Definition (IDEF) in BPR process modeling by adding a decomposition method of processes decomposed into and demonstrated in a process graph, and identifying sub-process steps. This method addition should aid then the process analysis prior to change implementation to speed up the process step and activity identification. The repeating model steps function as improvement aid in correcting incorrect or non-satisfying process activities or steps.
The study is derived from theory, and based on research by Hammer, Champy, Davenport, etc… The author analyzed their works and applied his proposal in this peer reviewed article. A Design of Research is proposed as the author elaborated that a “typical manufacturing system can be decomposed into subsystems and these, in turn, into activities” (Ki-Jin Jang, 2003). Ki-Jin Jang suggests further research.
This article benefits this paper because it supports the theory of modeling of processes prior to implementation as part as a decision tool whether the process / activities of sub-processes may or may not be beneficial to the organizational steps or process flow. The controversy however, is that once again there is an article speaking about passive process graphs with the objective to demonstrate to applicators and decision makers what a process should look like, rather than involving them as key and stakeholders. Actually, this makes this article usable in the argument of this paper that personal interaction methodologies in process mapping or process modeling is key to improve relationships which have already shown in other research by Gappmeier (1997) to improve change initiative participation, retention, and change productivity or effectiveness.
King S. F., and Aisthorpe, P., (2000). Re-engineering in the face of a merger: soft
systems and concurrent dynamics. Journal of Information Technology. 15: 165-
179
The article is about the evaluation of a Business Process Reengineering (BPR) case study performed on a real-life project of a medium-sized UK building society. This building society consisted of a mortgage financial services provider and a builder organization that financed and built housing projects for the local community. The organization faced challenges and wanted to improve its processes with the objective to put out a greater number of loans, sign up more savings customers, and financing a greater number of building housing projects. The organization then chose BPR as its major initiative for change. During the initiative, the process modeling, three different projects were competing with each other.
The organization had a long-term change project identified which was the initiative to make the process-steps within the savings and loans department more consumer and user friendly, thus speeding the process up. The second initiative was a short-term project in support of the first initiative, which was quick wins. Quick wins meant to the organization their ability to speed up the signup process of loan customers and processing their loans in a manner that would lead to loan closings faster and a greater closing ratio. This was a problem because in due course while processing, many of the potential customers went to competitors because it took to long to get the loan through at the subject organization.
The third initiative was a consultancy company initiated project. The KeyConsult organization did a process study and came up with such significant change proposals that required much time to implement and also required the restructuring of the senior management staff which consisted also of the BPR sponsor of project number one. This was potentially eradicating project number one. Further, the consultant organization suggested a merger. The merger initiative lead to rumors which demoralized the participants of project number one and two and proofed contradicting to efforts of completing and participating in the BPR initiative of projects one and two.
The credibility of the article arises from the personal involvement of one of the authors in the organization and the rigor academic background of the other author. In addition, the article was published in the peer reviewed Journal of Information Technology. As part of the case study BPR process modeling was performed to identify the various associated steps within the flawed processes.
This article is contributing to this paper discussing the controversy of conflicting BPR objectives and one project design resulting in the destruction of the other. Further, it was found worth-while to discuss project involvement of all versus only a select number of staff in workshops. Gappmeier (1997) proposed the involvement of all stakeholders as a significant part of obtaining change project buy-in while these authors in this article favor the attendance of limited staff in workshops without interaction “…and return to their jobs as if nothing had happened…” (King and Aisthorpe, 2000).
Marshall, J. (2004). Who Should control IT? Champy View. Financial Executives
International 9, 2004. 39-40.
This article is an interview between Financial Executives International represented by Marshall J. and James Champy, an authority of change involving Information Technology (IT) and Business Process Reengineering (BPR). Champy suggested that IT should not report to Finance because of future increase of process changes that will be “IT-enabled”. He appeared not having the greatest faith in Finance personnel being able to manage the IT department and IT personnel having a good insight into the finance-process needs. Further, another concern arrived, it was Champy’s view that Finance may not see a financial justification or adding value to the company, of process changes made that are driving IT reengineering in the rest of the organization.
Champy is also suggesting in the interview with Marshall that IT needs to move toward becoming a strategic entity in an organization and it should be on the forefront of process engineering (Marshall, 2004). This is contributing to the confrontational diverse discussion of this KAM VI paper together with what Gappmaier (1997), Goleman et al (2002), and Haudan (2002) who said about interactivity and human association managed by IT. IT is considered by these researchers inappropriate to manage the human participation during process change. Of course, Champy also confirmed this contradicting subject that Chief Information Officers (or IT people) should be sought out with increased organizational capabilities to address the organizational aspect of the company’s processes being addressed during IT-enabled reengineering.
Sandbrook, M. (2001). Using the EFQM Excellence Model as a framework for
improvement and change. Journal of Change Management. Vol. 2, 1, 83-90
Sandbrook (2001) describes a holistic method for organizational process change based on the European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) Excellence Model. In his paper he suggests holistic applications that consist of executive / CEO leadership of the organizational change initiative. The highest priority is set on the purpose definition and on clarity understanding of that purpose of all stakeholders. He suggested that a project will likely fail if it does not have management support and/or management has misunderstood or misinterpreted the purpose definition of what the organization should look like.
In this model, the leader identifies the purpose for the organization and includes the participation of as many as possible stakeholders, including the customers. The author described a change framework model that will likely succeed. Failure all too often is the result of not understanding what the organization should look like, or because the stakeholders and/or leaders either loose focus or mutate the target purpose.
In a way, this European holistic participatory focus of a model is very much like the model described and proposed by Gappmaier (1997). This is exactly why this paper provides a good discussion in support of holistic process change. As will be discussed and determined in the Depth section of this KAM VI paper, process change is not just about having a system, but also is about the skill of staying on track by including all, or as many as possible stakeholders in the change while managing the staying-on-target with the purpose or the picture of what the organization or the process should look like.
All too often, as part of a grand reason, according to Sandbrook (2001), failure of a project is the loosing of control or loosing sight of the picture of what the finished customer-focused process should look like. In this article it has been suggested that change processes mutate during its Business Process Reengineering initiatives.
The article is a theoretical model proposal based on the EQFM Excellence Model addressed by Sandbrook (2001). Sandbrook brings his credibility to the discussion table of this topic with his experience having applied this modeling in various organizations. Plus the Journal of Change Management is renowned publication providing much knowledge in that field. Sandbrook has received his MPB from Bath University.
Schneider, M., (2002). A stakeholder model of organizational leadership.
Organization Science 13:209-220.
Schneider (2002) compared Radix and bureaucracy organizations. Bureaucracy organizations have leadership forms of hierarchy. Radix demonstrated a new organization style of change, individuals forming cross-functional teams, and stakeholders connecting into a relationship with one common objective: being more flexible and adaptable.
Schneider based his article and information on surveys and interviews (also observation studies) of stakeholders during a prior radix and leadership research. He relies also on research performed by other renowned leadership experts such as Bass, Barney, Barnard, Denison, Katz, Quinn, Yukl, etc. His
Upon evaluation and comparison, this article will broaden the readers view about a stakeholder model of organizational leadership and relationship building. It will teach about leadership methods development, which considers the various parties that have an interest in the organization and its results. This either contributes or benefits the organization. Instead of speaking of followership, the author referred to joining the leader, as a result of forming stakeholder relationships.
Selladurai, R., (2002). An organizational profitability, productivity, performance (PPP)
model: going beyond TQM and BPR. Total Quality Management Journal. 13: 5, 613-619.
The author Selladurai (2002) compared and analyzed Total Quality Management (TQM) and Business Process Reengineering (BPR), based on Hammer, Davenport, Deming, and other authority-writers and researcher about the subject. He listed the pros and cons of each, TQM and BPR, and how they might interact to benefit organizational and business productivity. Finally he elaborated on his plan to combine the both, TQM and BPR.
Combining the TQM and BPR in this paper is proposed as Profitability, Productivity, and Performance (PPP). It is designed and proposed to increase all already positive components of TQM and BPR and decrease existing drawbacks of both, TQM and BPR. This in focus, Selladurai (2002) suggested major elements such as quality, people, customers, adaptability, business processes and leadership that organizations may use to improving profitability, productivity and performance…the six major factors, when implemented, would interrelate with one another to result in high profitability and high productivity.
The study performed by Selladurai (2002) is based on a literature comparison and analysis arising from renowned authors. Selladurai (2002) proposed in this peer reviewed article, published in the Total Quality Management Journal, which is a credible journal discussing alike subjects.
In thisI paper, various popular BPR models are discussed and proposed as an effective solution to a distressed organization, requiring change. Selladurai (2002) arrives with a suggestion to combine various techniques rather than keeping them apart. While according to the author TQM is used commonly alone to improve output quality, the IT side of the change is improved with BPR models. Selladurai (2002) offers six model-solutions in his PPP proposal.
In support of human interactive and collaborative aspects in respect to organizational change, discussed in this KAM VI paper, these six elements that Selladurai (2002) discussed, support the theoretical suggestion that process-change-addressing with IT measures require more aspects to aid in effective change. Such elements to be discussed are quality, people, customers, adaptability, business processes and leadership that organizations may use to improve profitability, productivity and performance (Selladurai, 2002).
10. References:
Bjoernsson, Sharig & Taylor (2002). Bridging the Innovation Gap in the AEC Industry-
CIFE Seed Proposal 2003. Computer Times, “Hardhats go High Tech,” p. 39-40
Gappmaier, M. (1997). Process prototyping-A methodology for participatory business
process design. Hofer, S.; Doucek P. (eds.); IDIMT’97 – 5th Interdisciplinary
Information Management Talks, Oldenbourg, München/Wien 1997
Goodman, J. and Truss, C. (2004). The medium and the message: communicating
effectively during a major change initiative. Journal of Change Management.
Taylor & Francis Ltd. 4: 3, 217-228.
Greenly, D. and Carnall, C. (2001). Workshops as a technique for strategic change.
Journal of Change Management. Henry Stewart Publications. 2: 1, 33-46.
Gunasekaran, A., and Kobu, B. (2002). Modeling and analysis of business process
reengineering. International Journal of Production Research. Taylor & Francis
Ltd. 40: 11, 2521-2546.
H. Skipton Leonard and Maynard Goff (2003). Leadership development as an
intervention for organizational transformation: A case study. Consulting
Psychology Journal 55:55-67.
Haudan, J. A. (2002). 'E' is for engagement: Transforming your business by transforming
your people. Journal of Change Management 2:255-11.
Joffe, M. and Glynn, S. (2002). Facilitating change and empowering employees. Journal
of Change Management 2:369-11.
Kendra, K. A. and Taplin, Laura J. US (2004). Change agent competencies for
information technology project managers. Consulting Psychology Journal:
Practice & Research 56:20-34.
Ki-Jin Jang (2003). A model decomposition approach for a manufacturing enterprise in
Business Process Reengineering. International Journal of Computer Integrated
Manufacturing. Taylor & Francis Ltd. 16: 3, 210-218.
King S. F. and Aisthorpe, P., (2000). Re-engineering in the face of a merger: soft systems
and concurrent dynamics. Journal of Information Technology. 15: 165- 179
Marshall, J. (2004). Who Should control IT? Champy View. Financial Executives
International 9, 2004. 39-40.
Sandbrook, M. (2001). Using the EFQM Excellence Model as a framework for
improvement and change. Journal of Change Management. Henry Stewart
Publications, 2: 1, 83-90
Schneider, M. (2002). A stakeholder model of organizational leadership. Organization
Science 13:209-220.
Selladurai, R. (2002). An organizational profitability, productivity, performance (PPP)
Model: going beyond TQM and BPR. Total Quality Management Journal. 13: 5,
613-619.