10. Conclusion

Too many diverse complexities can exist in any given project, too much to list. Because of that only the major issues in respect to the subject organization’s marketing materials change project were discussed. But this is also a good example of why it is so challenging to manage change. There are too many variables. And most of them derive from the elements of time.

It was found that each complexity, derived from the environment that employees and management create. The mix of the employees depending on cultural backgrounds, education levels, languages, upbringing, talents, and skills, make up the influences of the environment. Outside forces such as vendors, politics, financial monetary policies, governmental regulations domestically and globally, and the competition’s activities create multiple axes to each variable.

An environmental complexity of change has an axis of variables created by the element of time. The variable complexity of change “time” has also an axis of variables created by the environment. One variable influences another variable of change that leads to some kind of change on a different variable.

The complexities of change make it not impossible to predict the future of change and the process alterations in organizations, but they surely keep organizations busy trying to deal with conflicts between stakeholders, employees, and customers. As a consequence to the conflicts, organizations are less competitive, less productive, and less effective in their work.

If organizations could improve their communication quality it could help their effectiveness in communicating change. But communication is also poor. It is not only because of the electronic less effective method, but rather because of already neglected relationships. On top of it, conflict and friction created through radical process reengineering (change) aid to poor communication.

Employees recognize that change is necessary.  Just like in the subject organization, they knew that the materials had to be made compliant. But they would rather not go through it because of the lengthy process and the involved frictions and conflicts with one or multiple stakeholders. There is nothing wrong with the change, but the communication and the associated conflicts make it so difficult to move forward.

If the end of a project just like in the subject organization is the removal of the change project manager, and nothing much is accomplished at this end, then all effort was a waste. And why was the project change manager removed? Did management even understand what the causes of the conflicts were?

Perhaps, it came down to politics, of who knew who and who appears to have a greater say than somebody else, in the subject organization. Change duration was challenging to endure. It appeared that stakeholders expected that a one time meeting or email was enough to get all changes recorded.

There was a lack of awareness of the multiple stakeholder involvement requirements and that email correspondence was not going to help the relationship quality. And deadline delays for the project completion led to a misperception of the change project quality. The project manager should have turned the project into a participatory dictator-relationship with the stakeholders and having main management on his/her side. But as a new-comer, and when progress is expected quickly, and change processes are not understood, then the project may be doomed to be lost to the politics of unaware people, too uninformed about what can be expected during the change project.