2004_brenda_kearns

____________________________________________________________________

Technology and Change Management

Brenda Kearns School of Computing,

Dublin Institute of Technology, Kevin St., Dublin 8,

Ireland. Mailto: [email protected]

Abstract

The only thing that remains constant in today’s business environment is change. Pressures to secure competitive advantage coupled with new technology can be problematic unless effectively managed. This paper discusses the reasons for validating change and why change is vital to the success of an organisation. Resistance to change is shown to be the greatest obstacle to change. The paper illustrates how models such as the ADKAR and the Diffusion of Innovations can be used to explain users’ reactions. In order to implement technological change successfully within organisations, the proposed users must see the benefit of the proposed system and the inadequacies of the current system. The paper discusses the technology acceptance model and proposes that the use of effective change management techniques can increase users’ attitude towards using the proposed system. Communication was found to be fundamental to successfully achieving this.

Keywords: Change, management, technology acceptance, AKDAR, business process remodelling, resistance

1 Introduction In today’s turbulent business environment, the only thing that appears to remain constant is change. Social, economic, competitive and technical pressures are forcing organisations to rethink and reengineer the way they provide their service (Collerette et. al, 2002). These pressures can originate from internal and external sources; pressure from competitors and customers to provide

more for less and pressure from management to improve their efficiency, reduce cost and improve quality (Collerette et. al, 2002). The implementation of new technology is often central to achieving these goals. Legacy systems can become inefficient and too costly to maintain as compared with modern technological solutions (Bergey et al, 1999). The advent of new technology requires both new technological skills and knowledge (Heiss and Jankowsky, 2001). The typical reaction to new technology is fear, anxiety and uncertainty in the form of resistance to the change (Trader-Leigh, 2002). Resistance to change is accepted as a natural reaction. It is however is cited as one of the major obstacles facing organisations when trying to implement change (Prosci, 2002). Employees fear and resist change for a variety of reasons, fear of redundancy, fear of extra work and others which are detailed in section 3.2 (Trader-Leigh, 2002). It was found that management who rationalise away such concerns generate an instinctual protective reaction (Born, 1995). Change management helps to guard against over simplification of employee concerns. Change management is the process, tools and techniques to effectively manage people and the associated human resource issues that surface when implementing change (Prosci, 2002). Research carried out by Fred Davis delivered the Technology Acceptance Model; a tool that aims to isolate factors which most affect the integration of new technology in an organisation and is used to predict user acceptance of technological systems and applications. This paper focuses on

Technology and Change Management - Brenda Kearns

2

reengineering the TAM to account for change and proposes that using effective change management on the external variables that influence a user’s perception of a system can increase the level of acceptance. The author proposes that lessons learned from the top ten reasons for BPR failure coupled with ITIL (IT Infrastructural Library) best practices provide a good change management framework. The top ten reasons for BPR failure are described in section 3.3 and can be used as lessons learned and as such, act as inputs to the change management process. The culture, pressures and reasons for change differ from one organisation to another (Kotter, 1995). This paper aims to highlight mistakes made by organisations and suggest methods and best practices to avoid repeating them. This paper is of interest to managers facing organisation or technological change. It aims to offer guidance and advice on models and methods that are available to help manage the change process.

2 The Need for Change Management

Successful organisations do not stand still (ITIL, 1999). Changes in the business environment, advances in technology, changing expectations of staff are only a few of the pressures which force continuing change in an organisation (ITIL, 1999). There are many possible starting points for a change programme. Change can be internally driven or externally driven. Paulk (1999) refers to these as “push” and “pull” change factors respectively. Internally driven change is initiated when the organisation develops a new process or technology and “pushes” it into use to gain competitive advantage.

Externally driven change generally originates from customer demands, arising from requirements for a better service (Paulk, 1999). In the public sector, new government initiatives and legislative changes together with continuing pressures on resources are forcing public sector bodies to consider radical change as a way of life (ITIL, 1999). The basic goal is the same, to make fundamental changes in how business is conducted in order to cope with a more challenging market (Kotter, 1995).

2.1 Dr ivers of Change Organisational change is generally related to Information Technology (ITIL, 1999) and can take many forms, changes may occur in for example:

� Service delivery – the development of new types of services to customers including those based on new technologies and communications facilities, this might be an organisations response to changing customer needs and market trends; the business need to compete on the same level as its competitors (BS1400-2, 2003)

� Business processes – reengineering a business process to use new technology for financial gain (Hammer, 1990), this might be classified as a “push” change factor if the organisation is reacting to its competitors and wants to gain competitive advantage.

� People systems – changes in roles, responsibilities and working relationships; requirements for retraining based on new technologies.

� Structures and facilities – establishment of new organisations, agencies and partnerships to facilitate the


3

development and delivery of IT facilities. This type of change might be an organisations response to changing customer needs

� Technologies – the implementation of new IT infrastructures to support internal and external communications and information sharing for competitive advantage. Technological change can be driven both internally and externally. Heiss and Jankowsky (2001) point out however that establishing or reengineering processes to link technology resources and company objectives is a major challenge (Heiss and Jankowsky, 2001).

Effecting any change in the organisation can be problematic (Morton, 1992). Figure 2.1 illustrates the drivers and pressures for change and stability. This model is used as a basis for identifying the likely impacts of changes (ITIL, 1999). The model in Figure 2.1 shows that the drivers for change and stability can be divided into four distinct areas

1. Human Resource Development 2. Efficiency and Productivity 3. Preservation and Stability 4. Innovation Growth and change

Drivers for change and stability in the HR Development area can include pressure from empowerment of staff for career development, better working conditions or increased pay. Pressure from the management to maintain morale and cohesion yet motivate and develop staff. The model in Figure 2.1 illustrates that the four areas exert pressure for change and stability both directly and indirectly on each other.

A workers strike can be due to pressure from employees for better pay or working conditions. Examining the model, it can be shown that this change in the HR Development area can exert change on all other areas – Efficiency and Productivity, Preservation and stability and Innovation Growth and change. In the case of a workers strike, productivity and efficiency will drop, this will have an effect on the stability and preservation of the company as the service that is usually provided by the striking sector is no longer available.

Figure 2.1 Dr ivers for Stability and Change

(ITIL, 1999) Looking at the example of a workers strike again, it is often the case that workers go on strike because of the introduction of new technology to an organisation. The Irish postal service recently invested more than

��

million in new mail sorting systems in an effort to improve the postal service and reduce overheads. Resistance to this change resulted in a two week postal strike and the suspension of nine postal van drivers (An Post, 2004). The effects of this type of change arise from the Productivity and Efficiency area. The organisation needs to be able to:

� respond to pressures on resources

� improve the organisations performance

� increase productivity


4

� increase quality and efficiencies while lowering costs

In the case of An Post, they introduced new technology to address the Productivity and Efficiency need of the organisation. The introduction of new technology comes under the area of Innovation, Growth and Change, i.e. the drivers and pressures of an organisation to adapt, reshape and respond to pressures from customers for improved service delivery. Introducing new technology without use of proper change management practices can cause instability in the organisation. Applying the theory of the model in Figure 2.1 to the problems experienced by An Post shows that the organisation needed to increase productivity and efficiency which resulted in pressure for Innovation, Growth and change. The introduction of the new sorting system exerted change on the HR Development area. The postal workers resisted the change and exerted pressure on the organisation in the form of a strike for the preservation of the status quo. Pressures arising from the HR Development area resulted in a decrease in the Productivity and Efficiency. The model depicted in Figure 2.1 echoes the findings of Scott Morton’s MIT90’s framework (Morton, 1991) illustrated in Figure 2.2 which demonstrates that organisations are complex systems of people, structures, technology, culture, processes and management operating in an environment which is itself complex and constantly changing. The MIT90’s framework reinforces the theory that a change in any one of these elements can have repercussions elsewhere, and the unintended consequences of even minor changes can, in the worst case,

destabilise the whole change effort (Morton, 1991). The management of change is a complex undertaking; the complexity arises from the systematic or ‘holistic’ nature of organisational change. As soon as the organisation moves beyond very simple changes, it needs to take account of a variety of inter-related factors which can make the management of change a complex requirement (ITIL, 1999). The MIT90s framework illustrates this complexity. This framework represents the complexity as a set of five forces in dynamic equilibrium perpetually striving for stability (Morton, 1991).

Figure 2.2 MIT90's Framework (Scott

Mor ton, 1991)

� Strategy – the high-level goals and business objectives of the organisation

� Structure – the functions of the organisation, the way in which they are grouped and structured in order to meet the business objectives

� Management processes – the management policies, procedures, information flows and facilities for business


5

planning and the exercise of control in the organisation.

� Individuals and roles – the roles and activities of individual members of the organisation, their skills and motivation and the tools they use to accomplish their assigned tasks

� Technology – the technologies used by the organisation, in particular the information Technologies supporting the business processes.

Morton’s framework identifies that an organisation is also subjected to influences from its external environment to which it must respond. Both the internal forces in the organisation and the external environment change through time and the changes in any one area will have implications for the other areas (Morton, 1991). The complexity and interrelatedness of these areas highlight the need for dedicated management of the change process, if nobody is responsible for ensuring that an intended change takes place, the change effort will not reach fulfilment (ITIL, 2000). IT implementation projects are frequent in companies but experience shows that they involve significant change management problems and often entail losses which amount to some 100 billion dollars per year (Lientz and Rea, 1998). The models, The Drivers for Change and Stability and The MIT90’s Framework depicted in Figures 2.1 and 2.2 respectively, both demonstrate the complexity of implementing change on any area. The MIT90’s framework posits that the drivers and pressures are always ongoing. Section 3 will focus on the need for change management when implementing new technological solutions and discuss the people issues encountered during this type of change.

3 Technology and Change Management

Technological change is taking place all around us (Hammer, 1990; Kotter, 1995; Davis, 1989) from major technological change such as the development of complex robots capable of exploring far reaching planets of our solar system to minor changes in administrative procedures at work (ITIL, 1999). The rate of change of technology means that the technology used by any organisation is in a constant state of flux (Buchanan, and Huczynski, 1985); each generation of business application and IT infrastructure is superseded by the next wave of developments (ITIL, 1999). Advances in technology bring potential benefits and risks, which are not always easy to predict (UNDP, 2001). In 1973, the US Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) initiated a research program to investigate techniques and technologies for interlinking packet networks. This project became known as the “ Internetting Project” (ISOC, 2001). In 1973, the advantages of the Internet as we know it today were unknown. It has since brought us advantages such as global purchasing power at our desktop, an “ information super-highway” , a valuable research tool. Being unable to foresee the advantages, it was impossible to foresee the disadvantages, for example, accessibility and dissemination of illegal pornographic images, exposure to dangerous and illegal information facilitating international crime and supporting drug trade networks, and a continued battle against software viruses and cyber attacks. These are just some examples of the unforeseen directions that technology can take us.


6

Today’s technological transformations are intertwined with globalisation, and together they have created, the network age (UNDP, 2001). The network age had brought with it new opportunities and increased social and economic rewards from creating and using technology. Technology is not inherently good or bad, however, the value of technology depends on how it is used (UNDP, 2001). It is in any organisations best interest to adapt and grow with technological change, however, the rate of change of technology is not going to slow down anytime soon (Kotter, 1996) and as such needs to be managed. The strategic management of technology involves the top team in making a commitment to certain goals, analysing the organisations performance in relation to its technologies and future prospects and producing a vision and a mission statement (Anderson et al., 1997). There is constant pressure for organisations are forever being pushed to reduce costs, improve the quality of products and services, locate new opportunities for growth and increase

productivity and in order to facilitate these needs and requirements, adapting to technological change is a must (Kotter, 1996). In order to adapt and grow with advancements in technology, the proposed solutions must be accepted and adopted. Section 2.1 will discuss methods that can help organisations gauge the adoption and of proposed new technology.

3.1 Accepting Technology Figure 3.1 shows the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), first introduced by Fred D. Davis in 1986 as part of his doctorial dissertation (Davis, 1989). The TAM aims to isolate factors which most affect the integration of new technology into an organization and is used to predict, explain and increase user acceptance of technological systems and applications and to understand why end-users can reject the use of new technological solutions. The TAM focuses on two major characteristics of a system or software application

Figure 3.1 The Technology Acceptance Model, (Davis, 1989)

____________________________________________________________________

i. Perceived Ease of Use (EOU) is defined as “ the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would be free of effort”

ii. Perceived Usefulness (U) is

defined as “ the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would enhance their performance” `

The diagram in Figure 3.1 shows that EOU and U are influenced by external variables, some examples might be:

� a users experience of the current system and fear of redundancy

� popular opinions to the new implementation, both positive and negative and

� pressure from workers unions � age – users feeling they are too

old to learn (Collerette et. al, 2002)

TAM posits that the two characteristics, EOU and U results in the potential users attitude towards using the proposed system or application (Davis, 1989).

Attitude Towards Using (A) as defined by Davis (1989) is “ an individual’s positive or negative feeling about performing the target behaviour”

A user’s behavioural intention or BI is a person’s subjective probability that they will perform some behaviour (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1967) and is determined by the users’ attitude to the proposed system. In terms of technology acceptance, BI can be a potential user’s intention ‘ to use’ or intention ‘not to use’ a proposed system

Behavioural Intention (BI) as defined by Davis (1989) is “ the measure of strength of ones intention to perform a specified behaviour” .

TAM also regards that EOU has a direct effect on U and U has a direct on BI which is illustrated in Figure 3.1 as having a direct impact on the Actual System Use. Examination of the TAM shows that the root cause for the non-acceptance of a technological system or application is the impact of the external variables on its potential users. The probability that a system will be accepted and used can be increased by focusing and acting on the factors that influence users’ perception of a system (Collerette et. al, 2002). The Human Development Report 2001 (UNDP, 2001) lists three reasons for supporting the adoption of new technology:

1. Potential benefits, where the expected benefits are at least as great as the risks

2. Costs of inertia versus costs of change, where new technologies improve on those they replace

3. Means of managing risks, where potential harms can be managed and their likelihood reduced through systematic scientific research

While the reasons listed above are valid from a managerial point of view, it remains difficult to convince workers of the need for technological change (Kotter, 1995). People react in different ways to change, some embrace change, some pine for the old days of clearly defined roles and


8

responsibilities (Fender, 2004). Born suggests that in a typical BPR project under 33% of the design effort should concentrate on technologies and ideally over 2/3’s or more should deal with people issues (Born, 1995). The introduction of any technological solution is synonymous with change (Kuruppuarachchi, 2000). This paper proposes that using Davis’s TAM together with change management techniques coupled with the lessons learned form the most common reasons for Business Process Remodelling failure, it may be possible to enhance a user’s perception of a proposed system and generate a positive attitude toward using it. In theory, this will result in a positive behavioural intention towards using the proposed technological solution (PTS). Figure 3.2 illustrates a proposed reengineering of the TAM to account for system migration; it resembles the notion of Lewin’s 3-Step model of:

1. Unfreezing – overcoming the

habits and inertia of an organisation

2. Moving – making the change to the new system

3. Refreezing – making the changes last (Lewin, 1947).

Figure 3.2 illustrates the change process using a traffic light analogy:

1. Red: Stop usage of current technology solution

2. Amber: The transition period between the old system and the new system.

3. Green: Go, if the way is clear, i.e. implement the proposed solution so long as the environment and Human Resources are ready to accept it.

Change management is central to the process of making the transition from old system to new and change management practices should be employed throughout the transition (ITIL, 1999). The need for change, the progress of the project and the benefits of change should be communicated effectively throughout the change project.

____________________________________________________________________

Figure 3.2 TAM Traffic L ight Model (Author, 2004) The Current Technological Solution (CTS) exhibits similar variables identified by the TAM:

� BI(c): Behavioural Intention towards using the current solution

� A(c): Attitude towards using the current technological solution

� U(c): Perceived Usefulness of the current technological solution

� EOU(c): Perceived Ease of Use of the current technological solution

The Proposed Technological Solution (PTS) also exhibits similar variables identified by the TAM:

� BI(p): Behavioural Intention towards using the proposed solution

� A(p): Attitude towards using the proposed technological solution

� U(p): Perceived Usefulness of the proposed technological solution

� EOU(p): Perceived Ease of Use of the proposed technological solution

The introduction of new technological solutions is often met with resistance. Resistance to change can be regarded as an external variable, in which case will have a direct effect on U and EOU (Davis, 1989). Francis Patrick (2001) proposes that the champion of change may perceive what the audience for change considers as careful assessment and scrutiny as resistance to change (Patrick, 2001) however, the human factors involved in change is cited as a major obstacle (Collerette et. al, 2002). To overcome the obstacle of “ resistance to change”, it is necessary to achieve “buy-in” from perspective users of the system and the likelihood of achieving “buy-in” is enhanced with the effective use of change management.


10

Change management is required through out the duration of the change project. The main focus should be to understand the existing culture and skills set and communicate the new vision and plan for the future (Born, 1995). The Traffic Light TAM model is proposed as a visual aid to highlight the existence of acceptance variables in both technological solutions. Paying attention to common BPR pitfalls and utilizing change management models such as the ADKAR model aims to positively increase the value of the variable BI(p) while at the same time decrease the value of the variable BI(c). The following sections will discuss resistance to change and the main BPR pitfalls and examine the ADKAR model as one method of overcoming resistance to change.

3.2 Overcoming Resistance to Change

It is widely assumed that resistance to change is a common and natural phenomenon (Buchanan and Huczynski, 1985). Initiating change is a competitive and often hostile activity (Lindblom, 1994). Major technological changes or innovations can anticipate resistance, especially when proposed changes alter values and visions related to existing order (Trader-Leigh, 2002). Trader-Leigh (2002) likens it to “a kind of warfare” and notes that anyone who wants change has to overcome massive inertia. Technological change that satisfies one group of people can often reduce the satisfaction of other groups. (Trader-Leigh, 2002; Morton, 1991, ITIL, 1999), Lindblom (1994) believes that change ordinarily benefits some people by injuring others. Lindblom (1994) observed that the best way to block change is to render people unaware of the possibilities. He

notes that dominant stakeholders use this tactic to misrepresent the change efforts and present an enhanced view of the status quo. A stakeholder is defined as an individual or group of individuals such as employees, directors, shareholders, service providers, consultants, external organisations who have an interest in the change whether through their involvement with the change or because they will be affected by its outcome (ITIL, 1999). Lindblom (1994) also identifies that because these stakeholders are dominant and powerful, they can communicate and in other ways influence the thinking of significant number of others and as a result, change is resisted more successfully that it is initiated because its opponents are so powerful and so many (Lindblom, 1994). Management alone have the overall view and the ability to communicate it correctly to the organisation. Lack of proper communication empowers those stakeholders who want to resist the change (ITIL, 2000) and this resistance to change undermines the change effort (Trader-Leigh, 2002). Trader-Leigh (2002) identifies six key resistance forces to organisational change listed below. These key forces are also valid when applied to technological change: 1. Self-interest

Stakeholders seek to protect a status quo with which they are content and which they see as advantageous to them in some way. They develop vested interests in the perpetuation of particular organisation structures and accompanying technologies. Changes can disturb relationships and arrangements that have taken much time and effort to establish.


11

Typical questions proposed users of a new technological solution might ask:

� Will there be extra work

involved? � Will it be beneficial to me

personally? � What are the rewards of

using the proposed system? � Is it easy to use? � Will there be redundancies?

Bedeian (1983) believed that people invest time, effort and commitment in programmes, systems procedures and technologies to make them work, and these individuals may identify themselves more closely with their specific function or role rather than with the organisation as a whole.

2. Psychological impact Fear of redundancy. Technological change is often implemented to automate processes and can often be used to downsize or cut back on overtime hours (Hammer, 1990).

The threat to the existing professional expertise can cause huge psychological impact (Trader-Leigh, 2002). Employees who have in-depth knowledge of the current system can feel that their skills and expertise will become redundant. Middle aged programmers often feel betrayed having given many years of service to a company that they then find they have missed out on several technological trends and feel it is too late to catch up (Smith, 2001). Bedeian (1983) points out that change requires people to think and behave in different ways which can result in self-doubt. Individuals may fear that they will not be

capable of developing the new skills and behaviours that the new technological solution may demand.

3. Tyranny of custom The despotism of custom can inhibit change (Trader-Leigh, 2002). Lack of proper communication and information about the change can cause confusion and a desire to maintain the status quo (ITIL, 2000) and those in power often feel they have more to loose with upheaval of the status quo.

4. Redistr ibutive effects

This factor addresses the perceptions of loss of control and loss of funding. The costs of implementation and integration can bleed finances from other departments causing cutbacks, downsizing and redistribution of funds, this is also used as an opportunity to prune back middle management; resulting in loss of control (Hammer, 1995). Middle management often resists change for this reason.

5. Destabilisation effects

The introduction of new technology can cause destabilisation. Often legacy technology may need to run in parallel with the new system which can sometimes lead to data corruption and inconsistencies if not properly managed. Precipitating change can cause destabilisation because management resources are spread too thinly (Bowman, 1990).


12

6. Culture compatibility The introduction of new technological solutions can lead to new principles of participation for example, accountability and responsibility, having more customer focused approach. Such principles may conflict with bureaucratic structures and can be met with hostility. Workers will demand compensation for any extras they perceive the change will bring about that upsets the existing culture (Trader-Leigh, 2002).

To control resistance to change, it is important to manage the people aspects of change program. Quite often managers focus on the business dimension of change, the business need for change, the scope of the project, the processes that require reengineering and the implementation of the solution (Prosci, 2004). The people dimension of change is how the employees experience and react to the change process (Prosci, 2002) and is commonly cited as a major reason for project failure (Hammer, 1990; Prosci, 2002; Kotter, 1995; Bergy et. al, 1999). The ADKAR model is a management tool that can be used to diagnose employee resistance, help those employees through the change process and create a change management plan for them (Prosci, 2002). ADKAR is an acronym for Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability and Reinforcement. ADKAR was developed by Prosci who conducted research on more than 700 companies undergoing major change projects (Prosci, 2002). The model proposes that employees must go through the five stages (ADKAR) in

order to change. The model examines the “ readiness” of the employees at each step and enables management to develop a plan to induce readiness (Prosci, 2002). Table 3 illustrates the five key phases that form the basis of the ADKAR model and the management activities or other catalysts that enables employees to move from one phase to another. It is recommended that the phases occur in order and a level of comfort be reached at each phase for change to succeed (Bocklund, 2002). The first step the ADKAR model identifies is awareness. In order to generate awareness of the need for change in an organisation, there must be effective communication on the need for change (Kotter, 1995). Kotter (1995) noted that the most successful change efforts start with effective communication on the potential crises that could occur should the status quo remain in place. He suggests management should employ dramatic communication on the need for change on a broad scale, paying special attention to the potential crisis situation that could develop without change. Kotter (1995) found that over 50% of companies failed at this stage where management grew tired and impatient of the preliminaries and wanted change implemented as soon as technically possible. This communication effort is a motivational exercise and is aimed at gaining the support and understanding of the workforce. Failure to communicate the business needs for change will empower the informal leaders to communicate their perspective on the need for change with all the dangers that implies (Collerette et. al, 2002).


13

Steps Enablers

A

Awareness of the need for change

� Management communications � Customer input � Marketplace changes � Ready-Access to information

D

Desire to participate and support the change

� Fear of job loss � Discontent with current state � Imminent negative consequences � Enhanced Job Security � Affiliation and sense of belonging � Career advancement � Acquisition of power or position � Incentive or compensation � Trust and respect for leadership � Hope in future state

K Knowledge on how to change

� Training and education � Information access � Examples and role models

A

Ability to implement required skills and behaviours

� Practice applying new skills or new processes and tools

� Coaching � Mentoring � Removal of barriers

R

Reinforcement to sustain the change

� Incentives and rewards � Compensation changes � Celebrations � Personal recognition

Table 3.1 The ADKAR Model (Prosci, 2000; Modified by Author) Kotter (1995) found that despite putting effort into communication via newsletters and speeches, senior executives continued to behave in ways antithetical to the vision for change. One of the biggest mistakes a top sponsor can make is sending inconsistent signals or not communicating enough; dictating change without communicating the benefits (Prosci, 2003). Communication covers both words and deeds and the latter is often the most powerful form (Kotter, 1995). Following awareness for the need to change and having volleyed support for the need to change leads to the second phase of ADKAR, the desire to participate. Without achieving buy-in to the change project, there will be no desire to participate, career advancement, job security and incentives such as

compensation will enhance employees desire to participate (Prosci, 2003). The process cannot stop at ‘desire’ ; employees must possess knowledge on how to perform the change and the ability to change. Again, communication is the key to successfully imparting information on how the change process will occur. Any specialised training, or skills that might be required must be provided prior to implementing the change. Once the change is implemented, it is important it stays in place. Reinforcement of the change is vital to insure that the change is retained. Rodgers (1995) theory of ‘Diffusion of Innovations’ supports the concept


14

i. Knowledge Ii. Persuasion iii. Decision iv. Implementation v. Confirmation

Prior Conditions1. Previous Pracice2. Felt Needs/Problems3. Innovativeness4. Norms of the social system

Communication Channels

Characteristics of theDecision Making Unit

1.Socioeconomic characteristics2.Personality varialbes3. Communication Behaviour

Perceived Characteristicsof the Innovation

1. Relative Advantage2. Compatibility3. Complexity4. Trialability5. Observability

Adoption

Rejection

Continued Adoption

Later Adoption

Discontinuance

Continued Rejection

of reinforcement. He introduced the notion of ‘discontinuance’ where on occasion a decision can be made to reject an innovation after having previously adopted it. His research suggests that an individual (or decision making unit) passes from first knowledge of an innovation to forming an attitude toward the innovation, to a decision to adopt or reject, to implementation and use of the new idea, and finally to the confirmation of this decision (Rodgers, 1995). His model reflects the findings of the ADKAR model. The five stages that Rodgers identified are illustrated in . It is worth noting that communication plays a large role in the five stages, further highlighting the need for effective, positive, communication to achieve buy-in.

1. Knowledge occurs when an individual is exposed to an innovation’s existence and gains some understanding of how it functions.

2. Persuasion occurs when an individual forms a favourable or unfavourable attitude toward the innovation. Kotter (1995)

experienced that successful change efforts developed a vision of the future that was easy to communicate and appealing to the workforce.

3. Decision occurs when an individual engages in activities that lead to a choice to adopt or reject the innovation.

4. Implementation occurs when an individual puts an innovation to use.

5. Confirmation occurs when an individual seeks reinforcement of an innovation-decision already made, or reverses a previous decision to adopt or reject the innovation if exposed to

conflicting messages about the innovation. A conscious attempt to show people how the new approaches, behaviours and attitudes have helped improved performance will help anchor the changes (Kotter, 1995).

Despite the pressure for change and improvement and best efforts to


15

change, organisations can fail to maximise returns on their change efforts. Section 3.3 highlights the top ten reasons for such failures as identified by Bergey et. al (1999).

3.3 Business Process Remodelling and the role of IT Change Management

A common practice for change management is the process of migrating legacy systems to a more desirable target system (Bergey et al., 1999), this type of migration often involves ‘Business Process Remodelling’ (BPR). Michael Hammer (1990) defined BPR as

“ the fundamental rethinking of business processes to achieve dramatic improvement in critical contemporary measures of performance such as cost, quality, service and speed” .

Interest in BPR grew in the early 90’s as around this time most of the western economies were in recession and there was a desire to reduce the number of layers of middle management (Hammer, 1990). Davenport reported that BPR became known as “any attempt to change how work was done” while to others it meant a codeword for downsizing (Davenport et. al, 2003). Information technology has been central to the development and implementation of redesigned processes. BPR is synonymous with the application of IT however, it has also been found to be the principal impediment to the realisation of redesigned processes (Lyons, 1997). “The State of Reengineering Survey” found IT to be a key factor in any change effort; as a driver, enabler and inhibitor of change. Respondents cited the advent of new technologies, and the need to replace ageing and inadequate information systems, as key factors driving their efforts to change how they go to market and perform work (CSC, 1999).

In the case of migration to a new system, the legacy system may have become more difficult to maintain and as a result, no longer cost effective (Bergey et. al, 1999). The speed at which it may perform can be out performed by new technology innovations and as such the service provided can be poor (Hammer, 1990). As such, a transition must be made from the old legacy system to newer more advanced system to withstand competition. This often results in a change in the business process and without the proper change management in place, the transition from old system to new system can run into difficulties. Hammer’s fundamental notion of reengineering is the obliteration of outdated rules, assumptions and processes (Hammer, 1990) however his earlier rhetoric neglected the human element of BPR. He believed that “ in reengineering, we carry the wounded and shoot the stragglers” however such manifestations lead employees to fear change but also fear for their livelihood (Davenport et. al, 2003). Research carried out by the Software Engineering Institute in Carnegie Mellon University identified the following top ten reasons for failures in reengineering efforts (Bergey et al., 1999);

1. Adoption of a flawed or incomplete reengineering strategy

2. Inappropriate use of outside consultants and outside contractors

3. The work force is tied to old technologies with inadequate training programs

4. The organisation does not have its current system under control


16

5. There is too little elicitation and validation of requirements

6. Software architecture is not a primary reengineering consideration

7. There is no notion of a separate and distinct reengineering process

8. There is inadequate planning or inadequate resolve to follow the plans

9. Management lacks long-term commitment

10. Management predetermines technical decisions

This paper proposes that the ten reasons identified in this report can be employed as the external variables. The application of change management on these variables aims to yield a positive value for BI(p); in its least effective form, one that is greater than BI(c). The following sections will expand on the ten reasons for failure mentioned above and discuss how they impact the change process.

3.3.1 The adoption of a flawed or incomplete reengineer ing strategy

Most organisations have a long-term strategy when they embark on a reengineering effort, however, these strategies can sometimes be flawed or incomplete due to poor assumptions or lack of attention to detail (Bergey et al., 1999). Placing too much emphasis on the people-side of change or the steps involved in achieving the outcome can result in failure. Hammer (1999) recommends that BPR should be organised around outcomes and not tasks. Kotter believes that there should be a leading coalition made up of management and people who have a vision of what the outcome should be (Kotter, 1995). The planning stage sets the scope of the project and roles of the individuals involved. Without accurate planning the organisation is taking a risk and venturing into the unknown. Planning has been

found to be the most important phase of the change process (Prosci, 2002). High level strategic choices have substantial impact on the successes or failure of a reengineering project. Just as architectural decisions have long-lasting impact on the structure and operation of a system, these early strategic reengineering decisions are difficult to change and have repercussions on the overall reengineering result (ITIL, 2000). One example of a flawed strategy is when an organisation chooses to “ replace” rather than “ repair” a major subsystem while at the same time, abandoning corporate knowledge about the legacy system (Bergey et al., 1999) causing radical unnecessary change, which is questionable and risky (Bowman, 1990). However the opposite is also true, Hammer (1990) noticed that despite downsizing and automation in the 1980’s, organisations were failing to reap the benefits of BPR. Hammer (1990) attributed this failing to the automation of outdated processes; organisations using technology to speed up a faulty business process instead of reengineering them. He proposed that it is only by radically redesigning business processes that organisations can achieve great improvement in their performances. An example of an incomplete strategy might be lack of strategic foresight; embarking on a reengineering process without the provision of adequate resources, be they time, people or money (Prosci, 2004). Bergy et al., (1999) recommends that the inputs driving the reengineering decision analysis should always include:

1. The strategic issues: the value of the effort, the corporate impact and the timing.


17

2. Programmatic issues: resources, priorities, deliverables, schedule and risk

3. Technical issues: the feasibility, approach, architecture, tools and risk.

4. Economic issues: the cost, make/buy decisions and ROI.

The ITIL suggest that organisations should use a four stage change process model illustrated in Figure 3.4 as a framework for managing change. It demonstrates a cycle of change stimulated by a specific initial activity in which initial diagnosis leads to the planning and implementation of a change effort, followed by a review of the outcome. The ITIL consider that the results of the review combined with the impact of other changes in the organisation and external developments will eventually give rise to a further round of diagnosis leading to another cycle of change (ITIL, 1999), the BS1500-2 (2003) reaffirm this idea with their implementation of the PDCA (Plan, Do, Check, Act) cycle.

� Plan for improvements, � Do implement the change/service

management and provide the services,

� Check by monitoring, measuring and reviewing and

� Act on continuously improving it (BS15000-2, 2003).

This cycle of change however assumes no sequential order as it will involve iteration and backtracking, negotiation and experimentation; critical mistakes in any of the phases can have a devastating impact and negate any hard won achievements (Kotter, 1995). Planning for change must allow for the uncertainties inherent in the change process (ITIL, 1999) and should ensure that any change plans include plans for a back-out strategy in the event of serious unforeseen problems (ITIL, 2000).

Figure 3.4 Four Stage Change Process

Model (ITIL, 1999) The change process goes through a series of phases that in total require a considerable length of time, skipping steps can create an illusion of speed however never achieves satisfying results (Kotter, 1995).

3.3.2 Inappropr iate use of outside consultants

Bergy et. al (1999) discovered that organisations can hire unsuitable consultants who seem to be better at marketing themselves than accomplishing what is needed. Many organisations were found to relinquish too much control to contractors and often without the sufficient ‘ insider’ knowledge of the organisation, consultants made misinformed decisions with critical consequences. Bergy et. al (1999) also noted that when even when problems were identified and raised, inertia in the organisation resulted in no action being taken to remedy the situation. As a cost cutting measure, organisations often do not give consultants enough time to do an adequate job. From their research, Bergy et. al (1999) advise organisations to understand the desired skills of the consultant and what role they expect them to play. The value of consultants’ lies in them being used effectively to provide an


18

unbiased evaluation of a situation. Some of the more rewarding roles they found consultants played were:

1. To act as the team leader or key

facilitator within the reengineering team.

2. To provide and/or coordinate the training of team members.

3. To provide specific and detailed IT or technical systems advice and expertise.

More than three-quarters of companies that used consultants in this way rated the consultants’ effectiveness excellent or very good, and more than three-quarters of organizations cited the consultants’ influence as critical or very critical to the project’s success (Bergy et. al, 1999).

3.3.3 The work force is tied to old technologies with inadequate training programs

At the heart of change management lies the change problem that is for some future state to be realised, some current state must be left behind (Nichols, 2004). Re-engineering efforts in most cases take advantage of newer technology as opposed to the legacy system. The culture can be dependent on maintaining status quo. A culture can develop around the maintenance of old systems and that coupled with an aging work force that would rather not learn creates resistance to any change. They have become extremely familiar with the legacy system and would prefer to continue to maintain it, often reaping the personal monetary rewards of overtime (Smith, 2001). Heiss and Jankowsky (2001) note the change process is not only effecting the technology but also the technological knowledge and it is widely accepted that people fear such change as they perceive their own knowledge will become redundant.

It is not possible to continue to do business while at the same time bring the same workforce up to speed on the new technologies. Either there must be a conscientious and persistent effort to upgrade skills of the existing work force, or there must be a replacement of the existing work force, or there must be new workers added to the workforce or some combination of all three (Smith, 2001). Don Jones (2004) reports that organisation cite lack of available funds and time as reasons not to train staff and some MIS managers found it easier to gain budget for maintenance rather than reengineering (Smith, 2001).

3.3.4 The organisation does not have its legacy system under control

Configuration management provides a logical model of the infrastructure or service by identifying, controlling, maintaining and verifying the versions of configuration items in existence. Configuration management provides accurate information on configurations and their documentation (ITIL, 2000). Without such documentation, information about a given system can be inaccurate and hearsay and as such, changes made can be unpredictable and perilous. Configuration management of the legacy system should be in place to aid disciplined evolution. The system needs to be well documented, with an understanding of the priority of change requests and their impact on the system, without this in place affecting any change can lead to unknowns and often disaster (Bergy et. al 1999). Research found that legacy systems are often not under control due to poor documentation, inadequate


19

change control processes and inadequate historical measurements. This includes changes that have been made, costs of the changes and problem areas that occurred. A Configuration Management DataBase (CMDB) holds the relationships between all system components such as problems, known errors, changes and version releases (ITIL, 2000). Without such data, it is impossible to make meaningful cost projections for various classes of changes to the system, or to be able to plan on any kind of long term change. Change requests not having any metrics associated with them and the necessary historical configurations are substituted with guesswork and therefore give no indication of ease or severity of change (Bergy et. al 1999). Bergy et. al (1999) advise that organisations conduct research into the costs of maintaining the system versus the cost of change. It is also advised that organisations invest time into planning and constructing a CMDB (ITIL, 2000). Without any system configuration data the maintenance effort becomes crippled and chaotic and long-term planning becomes chaotic (Bergy et. al 1999).

3.3.5 Too little elicitation and validation of requirements

Significant flaws in the requirements elicitation and validation process lead to BPR failure (Bergy et. al 1999). “Chaos” a report published by the Standish group (1997) identified that the three leading causes for quality and delivery problems in the software industry were:

1. lack of user input 2. incomplete requirements and

specifications, omitting ‘obvious’ information

3. changing requirement specifications (Standish Group, 1997 in Olsen and Beeson, 2002)

Olsen and Beeson (1997) identified three categories of problems that arose in relation to the elicitation and validation of requirements:

1. Problems with scope, where the boundaries are ill defined and the requirements may address to much or too little information.

2. Problems of volatility due to the changing nature of requirements

3. Users lack of understanding of their own needs and the limitations of computer systems.

3.3.6 Software architecture is not a pr imary reengineer ing consideration

Failure can occur when a methodical evaluation of the software architectures of the legacy and target system is not a driving factor in the development of the technical reengineering approach. This evaluation is crucial to determine whether the legacy software architecture is viable as a base for further development (Bergy et. al 1999). This echoes the viewpoint of Michael Hammer (1990) who noted that some organisations reengineer and build upon process and systems that are faulty and inconsistent. He advises to identify and obliterate such faulty process instead of simply automating them.

3.3.7 There is no notion of a separate and distinct reengineer ing process

Bergy et. al (1999) regard that the existence of a documented life cycle process and corresponding work products are often wrongly viewed as being evidence of a sound


20

reengineering process. There needs to be a set of tasks and guidance to perform each step as well as an understanding of how the entire project fits together. Bergy et. al (1999) reason that quality people, with ample resources, employing suitable technologies rarely produce a quality product without using a quality process and identify that the four critical elements in BPR are; the people, the technology, the process and the resources available and should be central to all BPR efforts.

3.3.8 Inadequate planning or inadequate resolve to follow the plans

The British Standard 15000 identify the role of management is to ensure that new services and changes to services will be deliverable and manageable at the agreed cost and service level. The BS15000 advise that when planning for new or changed services should include reviewing budgets, staff resources, existing service levels and the scope of the service management (BS1500-2, 2003). Focusing on low-level “ software-problems” while neglecting the intermediate-level tactical management planning and systems engineering planning aspects of the job can cause projects to get out of kilter. As stated in section 3.7, there are four critical elements of a BPR project and focusing on some neglecting others can result in failure. Sometimes the vision can be clear, but there is an inadequate roadmap for getting from the current system to the proposed system. The change management team must develop a greater understanding of the legacy system, its mission, and the operational environment it is deployed in. This requires an understanding of the users of the system as well as a keen understanding of the organisations goals and objectives for reengineering the system. A documented project plan is required that can achieve buy-in of the stakeholders.

Chances of failure increase when:

� Management form a plan but there is no promulgation of the plan throughout the organisation.

� There is a lack of resources of implementation of plan. Failure to provide adequate people, time or money which undermines the BPR effort (Prosci, 2002)

� The plans can be incomplete, ‘obvious’ information is omitted

� The plans are changing frequently

� There is unforeseen changes in personnel or budgets

Change efforts take time and risk losing momentum if there are no short term goals to meet and celebrate (Kotter, 1995). Without short term wins, people give up or begin to resist the change. Kotter suggests that organisations should be proactive in establishing goals and objectives and rewarding those involved with recognition, promotion or money. Commitments to produce short term wins also help maintain the sense of urgency focus of the project.

3.3.9 Management lacks long term commitment

Kotter (1995) notes that major change is impossible unless the head of the organisation is an active supporter. Management support of the project means careful monitoring control of the direction of the project. Prosci (2002) reported that the number one contributor to project success is strong visible and effective sponsorship. Effective sponsors are distinguished as those who:


21

� show active and visible support, both privately and professionally

� ensure that the change remains a priority

� demonstrate their commitment as a role model of change

� provide compelling justification for why the change is happening

� communicate a clear understanding of the goals and objectives of the change

� provide sufficient resources for the team and project to be successful

Management commitment is a generic problem that is common to all large-scale projects, even those outside the domain of change management. When management are not fully committed to a reengineering effort, the project tends to loose focus. BPR projects are likely to fail if:

� Management gives all responsibility to lower level managers or outsiders, the will tend to take the project in different directions than were initially intended.

� There exists middle management resistance. This represents a significant obstacle since middle managers directly interact with front-line employees. Resistance was due to a perceived loss of power and/or limited input in the project (Prosci, 2002).

� Management change priorities too soon and shift their focus, this can be attributed to loss of interest, the reason for change has become unclear, they become distracted in other project or the project is heading for failure.

� Without a strong line of leadership, change groups never achieve the power that is required despite how dedicated or capable they may be (Kotter, 1995).

3.3.10 Management predetermines technical decisions

Bergy et. al (1999) discovered that more often that not, project schedules, costs, and deliverables are dictated by top management decisions. Mandates or edicts issued by upper management that predetermine the technical approach or schedule, cost and performance considerations without sufficient project team input or concurrence are frequently seen to cause reengineering failure, Detailed planning of schedules and milestones can only be accurately determined through careful study of the technical limitations of a system, based on an understanding of the system, historical data and knowledge of that specific skill. Bergy et. al (1999) found this to be one of the most prevalent causes of BPR failure. Over simplification of the needs of the organisation by top management leads to outrageous demands within ridiculous timeframes. It was noted however that failure of the project was attributed to the technical decision process, the technology used or the reengineering team and not top management. The crucial mistakes described above are identified as the more common reasons for failure. Change management in the organisation aims to guard against repeating those mistakes.

4 Conclusion Change is inevitable, the market changes, customer demands change and the technology to support the business change, however change is not always within the control of the


22

organisation. Research shows that it is important to proactively manage and control and seek out change in order to succeed and gain a competitive edge. An organisations ability to respond and adapt quickly can provide increased stability in the midst of change. Effective change management can help towards attaining stability; the four stage model and PDAC cycle are suggested basic frameworks for managing change. Technology is central to most BPR projects and often the success of the project depends on the acceptance of technology. This paper proposed that using change management techniques on the external factors that influence a user’s perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use of technology can boost their acceptance of the system. The TAM Traffic Light Model illustrated in this paper is a derivation of the Technology Acceptance Model. It illustrates that the acceptance variables A, EOU, U and BI are present in both systems. This paper proposes that change management techniques focusing on resistance to change and common BPR failures can help create a slightly negative BI towards the current system while creating a more positive BI towards the proposed system. Research shows that the greatest obstacle to change is resistance to change (Prosci, 1999, Bergey et. al, 1999, Fender, 2004). The ADKAR model proposes that employees must go through the five stages (Awareness Desire Knowledge Ability and Reinforcement) in order to change. The model examines the inclination of the employees at each step and enables management to develop a plan to induce willingness to accept the change. The top ten most common reasons for BPR failure can be used as a framework or inputs to the change management process. The common factor evident from these failures was a lack of effective

communication. Management need to communicate the need for change and highlight the crisis situation that may develop by avoiding the change. Effective communication should be used to promote or market the new proposed changes while at the same time, demonstrate the inadequacies of the older system. Users resist change because they fear the unknown but effective communication from the start of the change project can help reduce this fear. It was noted that communication efforts must be both verbal and active (Kotter, 1995). Management must be seen to give active support to the change process for it to gain the full support of the workforce. In reality the change not only has to be managed but also has to be marketed. Once the change has been implemented, the change management process must constantly review the change and reinforce it. The ITIL suggest that for every change implementation plan, there must exist a back out strategy, without the ability to rollback, the repercussions can be disastrous.

References AJZEN, I. AND FISHBEIN, M. (1975),

Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behaviour: An Introduction to Theory and Research, Reading, Ma: Addison-Wesley Publishing

ANDERSON, J., FEARS, R. and TAYLOR, B. (1997), Managing Technology for Competitive Advantage, Cartermill International and Financial Times, 1997

AN POST (2004), An Post Demands Changes Already Paid For, available at http://www.anpost.ie/corporate/corporate_news_article.asp?ID=354 last accessed 13/04/04


23

BEDEIAN, A.G., (1983), Organisations: Theory and Analysis, Dryden Press, Illinois, 2nd Edition1983

BERGEY, J., SMITH, D., TILLEY, S., WEIDERMAN, N. AND WOODS, S. (1999), Why Reengineering Projects Fail, Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute, available at http://www.sei.cmu.edu/pub/documents/99.reports/pdf/99tr010.pdf last accessed 07/04/04

BOCKLUND, L. (2002), Rising to the Challenge of Change, ICCM Weekly, October 10, 2002

BOWMAN, C. (1990), “ Managing Strategic Change” , In: The Essence of Strategic Management, 1st Edition, Prentice Hall, 1990

BORN, G (1995), Business Process Re-engineering – A Short Guide, Electronic Aids for Increased Profits, IEE Seminar on 29 Jun 1995 pp.7/1-7/5

BS1500-2 (2003), IT service management. Code of practice for service management, British Standards Publishing Limited, 2003

BUCHANAN, D.A. AND HUCZYNSKI, A. A. (1985), Organisational Behaviour An Introductory Text, Prentice Hall International, 1985

COLLERETTE, P., SCHNEIDER R and LEGRIS P. (2002), Managing Organisational Change, ISO Management Systems, March-April 2002

CSC (1999), Business reengineering requires IS mastery of new processes, skills and tools, Foundation Report 1999

DAVIS, F.D, “ A Technology Acceptance Model for Empirically Testing New End-User Information Systems: Theory and Results” , Doctorial dissertation, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1986

DAVIS, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information

technology, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 13 No.3, 319-340

DAVENPORT, T.H, PRUSAK, L. AND

WILSON, H.J, 2003, Reengineering Revisited, Computerworld, Vol. 37 Issue 25, pp48-50, 2003

FENDER, M (2004), People Not Technology: The Key to Successful Change Management, Enterprise Systems Journal, updated version available at http://www.bee.net./bluebird/chg_mgmt.htm last accessed 17/04/04

JONES, D. (2004), The Definitive Guide To Enterprise Network Configuration and Change Management, Realtimepublishers.com, 2004

HAMMER, M (1990), Reengineering work: Don’ t automate, obliterate, Harvard Business Review, July-August, 1990

HEISS, M AND JANKOWSKY, M. (2001), The Technology Tree Concept – An evolutionary approach to technology management in a rapidly changing market, IEMC 2001 Proceedings from Change Management and the New Industrial Revolution, 2001, 7-9 Oct. 2001 pp:37 - 43

ITIL (1999), CCTA: IS Management Guides Managing Change, Format Publishing Limited, ISBN 1903091012

ITIL, (2000), CCTA: Service Support, The Stationery Office Books, 2000

ISOC, (2001), A Brief History of the Internet and Related Networks, The Internet Society, available at http://www.isoc.org/internet/history/cerf.shtml last accessed 16/04/04


24

KOTTER, J.P. (1995), Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail, Harvard Business Review, March-April 1995

KURUPPUARACHCHI, P. R. (2000), Organisational Factors and IT Projects: A Critical Review, ICMIT 2000. Proceedings of the 2000 IEEE International Conference on Management of Innovation and Technology, 2000, Volume: 2, 12-15 Nov. 2000, pp:496 – 501

LEWIN K. (1946), “Action research and minority problems”, Resolving social conflicts field theory in social science, Psychological Association, Washington DC, USA

LIENTZ, P. AND REA, K. (1998), Breakthrough Technology Project Management, Academic Press, Harcourt Brace & Company, 1998

LINDBLOM, C. E. (1994), Modes of Inquiry, Berkley Symposium on Initiating Change, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 4, No. 3 July 1994 pp. 327

LYONS, G. J. (1997), Information technology: BPR tool and organisation building block, Proceedings from the Americas Conference on Information Systems 1997

OLSEN, T. AND BEESON, D. (2002), How to Practically Improve your Requirements process using the CMMI Framework, Proceedings from the 2002 CMMI Technology Conference, 2002

SCOTT MORTON, M (1991) The Corporation of the 1990’s: Information Technology and organisational transformation, Sloan School of Management, Oxford University Press, New York

PAULK, M.C. (1999), Structured Approaches to Managing Change, The Journal of Defense Software Engineering Vol. 12, No. 11 November 1999 pp. 4-7

PROSCI (2002), 2002 Best Practices in Business Process Reengineering Report, available at http://www.prosci.com/bprbestpractices.htm, last accessed 10/04/04

PROSCI (2003), The five biggest mistakes top-management can make during a major change, Best Practices in Change Management, 2003

PROSCI (2004), “ ADKAR” – a model for change management, Change Management Tutorial Series, available at http://www.prosci.com/adkar-overview.htm last accessed 15/04/04

RODGERS, E., (1995), Diffusion of Innovations, 4th Edition, New York: The Free Press, 1995

SMITH, C (2001), “ Managing Technological Change” , In: Technology Strategies 1st Edition, Prentice Hall, 2001

TRADER-LEIGH, K. E (2003), Case Study: Identifying resistance in managing change Journal of Organizational Change Management; Volume 15 No. 2; 2002.

Copyright © 2004

Brenda Kearns

The author assigns to Dublin Institute of Technology a non-exclusive licence to use this document for personal use and in courses of instruction provided that the article is used in full and this copyright statement is reproduced. The author also grants a non-exclusive licence to Dublin institute of Technology to publish this document in full on the World Wide Web (prime sites and mirrors) and in printed form within Dublin Institute of Technology publications. Anyt other usage is prohibited without the express permission of the author, This paper relies on the format and style of the Instructions to Authors of a number of international conferences.

2004_brenda_kearns

Documents