Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2004 Brenda Kearns
2004 Brenda Kearns
2
Technology and Change Management - Brenda Kearns
3
Technology and Change Management - Brenda Kearns
4
Technology and Change Management - Brenda Kearns
5
Technology and Change Management - Brenda Kearns
6
i. Perceived Ease of Use (EOU) Behavioural Intention (BI) as
is defined as “the degree to defined by Davis (1989) is “the
which a person believes that measure of strength of ones
using a particular system intention to perform a specified
would be free of effort” behaviour”.
ii. Perceived Usefulness (U) is TAM also regards that EOU has a
defined as “the degree to which direct effect on U and U has a direct on
a person believes that using a BI which is illustrated in Figure 3.1 as
particular system would having a direct impact on the Actual
enhance their performance”` System Use.
The diagram in Figure 3.1 shows that Examination of the TAM shows that
EOU and U are influenced by external the root cause for the non-acceptance
variables, some examples might be: of a technological system or
a users experience of the application is the impact of the
current system and fear of external variables on its potential
redundancy users. The probability that a system
popular opinions to the new will be accepted and used can be
implementation, both positive increased by focusing and acting on
and negative and the factors that influence users’
pressure from workers unions perception of a system (Collerette et.
age – users feeling they are too al, 2002).
old to learn (Collerette et. al,
2002)
The Human Development Report 2001
TAM posits that the two (UNDP, 2001) lists three reasons for
characteristics, EOU and U results in supporting the adoption of new
the potential users attitude towards technology:
using the proposed system or 1. Potential benefits, where the
application (Davis, 1989). expected benefits are at least as
great as the risks
Attitude Towards Using (A) as 2. Costs of inertia versus costs of
defined by Davis (1989) is “an change, where new
individual’s positive or technologies improve on those
negative feeling about they replace
performing the target 3. Means of managing risks,
behaviour” where potential harms can be
managed and their likelihood
A user’s behavioural intention or BI is reduced through systematic
a person’s subjective probability that scientific research
they will perform some behaviour
(Ajzen and Fishbein, 1967) and is While the reasons listed above are
determined by the users’ attitude to the
valid from a managerial point of view,
proposed system. In terms of it remains difficult to convince workers
technology acceptance, BI can be a of the need for technological change
potential user’s intention ‘to use’ or
(Kotter, 1995). People react in
intention ‘not to use’ a proposed different ways to change, some
system embrace change, some pine for the old
days of clearly defined roles and
____________________________________________________________________
Technology and Change Management - Brenda Kearns
8
Figure 3.2 TAM Traffic Light Model (Author, 2004)
10
Technology and Change Management - Brenda Kearns
11
Technology and Change Management - Brenda Kearns
12
Technology and Change Management - Brenda Kearns
Steps Enablers
Management communications
Customer input
A Awareness of the need for change Marketplace changes
Ready-Access to information
Fear of job loss
Discontent with current state
Imminent negative consequences
Enhanced Job Security
Affiliation and sense of belonging
D Desire to participate and support the
change
Career advancement
Acquisition of power or position
Incentive or compensation
Trust and respect for leadership
Hope in future state
Training and education
K Knowledge on how to change Information access
Examples and role models
13
Technology and Change Management - Brenda Kearns
Communication Channels
Prior Conditions
1. Previous Pracice
2. Felt Needs/Problems i. Knowledge Ii. Persuasion iii. Decision iv. Implementation v. Confirmation
3. Innovativeness
4. Norms of the social
system
Later Adoption
Characteristics of the Perceived Characteristics
Decision Making Unit of the Innovation
14
Technology and Change Management - Brenda Kearns
15
Technology and Change Management - Brenda Kearns
5. There is too little elicitation and found to be the most important phase
validation of requirements of the change process (Prosci, 2002).
6. Software architecture is not a
primary reengineering High level strategic choices have
consideration substantial impact on the successes or
7. There is no notion of a separate failure of a reengineering project.
and distinct reengineering process Just as architectural decisions have
8. There is inadequate planning or long-lasting impact on the structure
inadequate resolve to follow the and operation of a system, these early
plans strategic reengineering decisions are
9. Management lacks long-term difficult to change and have
commitment repercussions on the overall
10. Management predetermines reengineering result (ITIL, 2000).
technical decisions One example of a flawed strategy is
when an organisation chooses to
This paper proposes that the ten reasons “replace” rather than “repair” a major
identified in this report can be employed subsystem while at the same time,
as the external variables. The application abandoning corporate knowledge
of change management on these variables about the legacy system (Bergey et
aims to yield a positive value for BI(p); in al., 1999) causing radical
its least effective form, one that is greater unnecessary change, which is
than BI(c). The following sections will questionable and risky (Bowman,
expand on the ten reasons for failure 1990). However the opposite is also
mentioned above and discuss how they true, Hammer (1990) noticed that
impact the change process. despite downsizing and automation in
the 1980’s, organisations were failing
3.3.1 The adoption of a flawed or to reap the benefits of BPR. Hammer
incomplete reengineering (1990) attributed this failing to the
strategy automation of outdated processes;
Most organisations have a long-term organisations using technology to
strategy when they embark on a speed up a faulty business process
reengineering effort, however, these instead of reengineering them. He
strategies can sometimes be flawed or proposed that it is only by radically
incomplete due to poor assumptions or redesigning business processes that
lack of attention to detail (Bergey et al., organisations can achieve great
1999). Placing too much emphasis on the improvement in their performances.
people-side of change or the steps An example of an incomplete
involved in achieving the outcome can strategy might be lack of strategic
result in failure. Hammer (1999) foresight; embarking on a
recommends that BPR should be reengineering process without the
organised around outcomes and not tasks. provision of adequate resources, be
Kotter believes that there should be a they time, people or money (Prosci,
leading coalition made up of management 2004). Bergy et al., (1999)
and people who have a vision of what the recommends that the inputs driving
outcome should be (Kotter, 1995). The the reengineering decision analysis
planning stage sets the scope of the should always include:
project and roles of the individuals
involved. Without accurate planning the 1. The strategic issues: the value
organisation is taking a risk and venturing of the effort, the corporate
into the unknown. Planning has been impact and the timing.
16
Technology and Change Management - Brenda Kearns
17
Technology and Change Management - Brenda Kearns
18
Technology and Change Management - Brenda Kearns
change control processes and inadequate Olsen and Beeson (1997) identified
historical measurements. This includes three categories of problems that
changes that have been made, costs of the arose in relation to the elicitation and
changes and problem areas that occurred. validation of requirements:
A Configuration Management DataBase
(CMDB) holds the relationships between 1. Problems with scope, where
all system components such as problems, the boundaries are ill defined
known errors, changes and version and the requirements may
releases (ITIL, 2000). Without such data, address to much or too little
it is impossible to make meaningful cost information.
projections for various classes of changes 2. Problems of volatility due to
to the system, or to be able to plan on any the changing nature of
kind of long term change. Change requirements
requests not having any metrics associated 3. Users lack of understanding
with them and the necessary historical of their own needs and the
configurations are substituted with limitations of computer
guesswork and therefore give no systems.
indication of ease or severity of change
(Bergy et. al 1999). 3.3.6 Software architecture is
not a primary
Bergy et. al (1999) advise that reengineering
organisations conduct research into the consideration
costs of maintaining the system versus the Failure can occur when a methodical
cost of change. It is also advised that evaluation of the software
organisations invest time into planning architectures of the legacy and target
and constructing a CMDB (ITIL, 2000). system is not a driving factor in the
Without any system configuration data the development of the technical
maintenance effort becomes crippled and reengineering approach. This
chaotic and long-term planning becomes evaluation is crucial to determine
chaotic (Bergy et. al 1999). whether the legacy software
architecture is viable as a base for
3.3.5 Too little elicitation and further development (Bergy et. al
validation of requirements 1999). This echoes the viewpoint of
Significant flaws in the requirements Michael Hammer (1990) who noted
elicitation and validation process lead to that some organisations reengineer
BPR failure (Bergy et. al 1999). “Chaos” and build upon process and systems
a report published by the Standish group that are faulty and inconsistent. He
(1997) identified that the three leading advises to identify and obliterate such
causes for quality and delivery problems faulty process instead of simply
in the software industry were: automating them.
19
Technology and Change Management - Brenda Kearns
20
Technology and Change Management - Brenda Kearns
21
Technology and Change Management - Brenda Kearns
22
Technology and Change Management - Brenda Kearns
23
Technology and Change Management - Brenda Kearns
KOTTER, J.P. (1995), Leading Change: PROSCI (2002), 2002 Best Practices
Why Transformation Efforts Fail, in Business Process
Harvard Business Review, March- Reengineering Report, available
April 1995 at
KURUPPUARACHCHI, P. R. (2000), http://www.prosci.com/bprbest
Organisational Factors and IT practices.htm, last accessed
Projects: A Critical Review, ICMIT 10/04/04
2000. Proceedings of the 2000 IEEE PROSCI (2003), The five biggest
International Conference on mistakes top-management can
Management of Innovation and make during a major change,
Technology, 2000, Volume: 2, 12- Best Practices in Change
15 Nov. 2000, pp:496 – 501 Management, 2003
LEWIN K. (1946), “Action research and PROSCI (2004), “ADKAR” – a model
minority problems”, Resolving for change management,
social conflicts field theory in social Change Management Tutorial
science, Psychological Association, Series, available at
Washington DC, USA http://www.prosci.com/adkar-
LIENTZ, P. AND REA, K. (1998), overview.htm last accessed
Breakthrough Technology Project 15/04/04
Management, Academic Press, RODGERS, E., (1995), Diffusion of
Harcourt Brace & Company, 1998 Innovations, 4th Edition, New
LINDBLOM, C. E. (1994), Modes of York: The Free Press, 1995
Inquiry, Berkley Symposium on SMITH, C (2001), “Managing
Initiating Change, Journal of Public Technological Change”, In:
Administration Research and Technology Strategies 1st
Theory, Vol. 4, No. 3 July 1994 pp. Edition, Prentice Hall, 2001
327 TRADER-LEIGH, K. E (2003), Case
LYONS, G. J. (1997), Information Study: Identifying resistance in
technology: BPR tool and managing change Journal of
organisation building block, Organizational Change
Proceedings from the Americas Management; Volume 15 No.
Conference on Information Systems 2; 2002.
1997
OLSEN, T. AND BEESON, D. (2002), How Copyright © 2004
Brenda Kearns
to Practically Improve your
Requirements process using the The author assigns to Dublin Institute of
CMMI Framework, Proceedings Technology a non-exclusive licence to use
from the 2002 CMMI Technology this document for personal use and in
Conference, 2002 courses of instruction provided that the
article is used in full and this copyright
SCOTT MORTON, M (1991) The statement is reproduced. The author also
Corporation of the 1990’s: grants a non-exclusive licence to Dublin
Information Technology and institute of Technology to publish this
organisational transformation, document in full on the World Wide Web
Sloan School of Management, (prime sites and mirrors) and in printed form
within Dublin Institute of Technology
Oxford University Press, New York publications. Anyt other usage is prohibited
PAULK, M.C. (1999), Structured without the express permission of the author,
Approaches to Managing Change,
The Journal of Defense Software This paper relies on the format and style of
Engineering Vol. 12, No. 11 the Instructions to Authors of a number of
international conferences.
November 1999 pp. 4-7
24