available at managing human resources …ijrmst.org/download/vol4no1/3.pdf · keywords-- flexcube,...

International Journal of Research in Management, Science & Technology (E-ISSN: 2321-3264)

Vol. 4, No. 1, April 2016 Available at www.ijrmst.org

2321-3264/Copyright©2016, IJRMST, April 2016 12

Managing Human Resources and Organizational

Change for Effective Information Systems

Reengineering in Nigeria

1Dr. Amaeshi Uzoma Francis,

2Akujor Jane C.,

3Amade Benedict

1,2,3Department of Project Management Technology

Federal University of Technology, P.M.B. 1526, Owerri, Nigeria [email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

Corresponding author: Dr. Amaeshi Uzoma Francis

Abstract-- This study focuses on managing human

resources and organizational change in Nigeria’s banking

industry within the context of organizational culture in the

domain of Business Process Reengineering (BPR). Our

purpose is to find out why well-tested scientific

management theories in advanced countries do not seem to

be applicable in Nigeria with a view to working out an

alternative methodology that can best suit our culture and

environment. We adopted a social science descriptive

survey research targeted at a finite population of 1500

respondents spread throughout Nigeria; collecting

qualitative and quantitative data from the Human

Resources Departments of three study banks (First Bank

Plc, Union Bank Plc and United Bank for Africa). Since

our study was correlational that provided statistical

associations (rather than causal between variables) we

used Mckinsey’s 7–S framework to measure the core

research constructs and utilized both parametric and non-

parametric tests to ensure that no significant differences

occurred in the means of the respective survey

instruments. We also used ANOVA and Pearson

Correlation to determine the significance of association

between the specified variables; performed all statistical

tests at 95% confidence level using SPSS version 8. Our

major finding is that once generic standard solutions are

defined, they can be implemented to reach the desired

coverage of the new solutions if top management properly

understands the role of organizational culture in change

implementation while at the same time performing their

function of coordinating the change according to the

workers readiness for the change initiative. We therefore

recommend cultural audit which can reveal the unwritten

code of conduct that encourage system users to hoard

information. Further research might look at the

differences between the results found in this study with

small and medium sized companies, as this research

focused only on large scale organizations.

Keywords-- Flexcube, Information Systems Reengineering,

Organizational Culture

I. INTRODUCTION

Organizational requirements for competitive

advantage in the 21st century have changed the

philosophy of management by direction and control

hitherto aimed at motivating employees. The recent

emphasis on “people” and “people management

systems” as a source of competitive advantage has

become important topics for discussion both in

academic and business circles. In the research area of

Human Resource and Organizational Change

Management, organizations must understand how

technology management can enhance individual and

organizational effectiveness as well as the quality of

human experiences in organized settings [1]; [2];

[3];[4].

Business Process Reengineering (BPR) arose at the

beginning of the 1990s following attempts by large US

companies to use Information Technology (IT) for

linking business processes that cut across functional

boundaries. Managing and implementing change

undoubtedly became one of the most critical factors for

successful management of business [5]. Factors

influencing successful change management of

information technology have been studied and

documented in various research reports on BPR yet

many of the efforts fail.

Researchers have looked at observable changes in

one or more organizational subsystems, such as people,

processes, cultures, procedures and practices, structures,

information systems[6];[7];[8];[9];. Like the mainstream

of Management Information System (MIS) writers, the

interpretivists’ have focused mainly on the nature of

MIS to the relative neglect of the concept of

organization. Their writings do imply particular views

of organization which are different from the goal-

seeking model but they do not present well-defined

mailto:[email protected]






models of organization which could be used in any

detailed sense to shape and guide the provision of MIS

within an organization [9]. Their focus in the change

initiatives as well as in the theory, is primarily on

creating and designing optimal solutions for new ways

of doing business [11]; [12]. Concerning the process of

making the change real, the main emphasis lies on

planning and leading the change process, whereas

implementing the solutions in practice is often

considered as a mechanistic task of executing the plans.

[13]. Consequently, a lot of effort and resources are

spent on development work and planning; investors

invest in Information Technology hoping to achieve

better organizational effectiveness but the targets are

seldom met [14].

The relationship between people and tasks for the

purpose of redesigning work process is to increase

efficiency. In order to achieve any such objectives of

organizational effectiveness, the firm must be able to

implement the new technology effectively [15]. This is

where the problem starts. In other words, problems

emerge in the implementation phase when the change

methods developed, concepts and processes are brought

into real business environment in Nigeria. These are

considered as failure of the whole initiative as a result

new development programs are started for replacing the

existing ones[16].

Our aim in this study is to examine the applicability

of BPR to organizations in Nigeria especially the

banking institutions and, particularly, to determine how

the ‘people’ element of re-engineering projects in banks

affect the success of such projects. The performance of

banks is of great significance for the competitiveness of

nations. It follows, therefore, that achieving successful

change in banks is of utmost importance, and

determining the applicability of BPR to transaction -

processing systems of banks is a highly significant

exercise. If ‘traditional’ working practices are no longer

efficient in the modern banks, then they must determine

effective ways of successfully achieving change. The

experience with BPR in the manufacturing sector has

demonstrated that failing to ‘change people’ has been a

major barrier to success. Thus, changes in work

environment without worker participation wreak havoc

because they have no capacity to adapt. If organizations

are machines, control makes sense. “If organizations are

process structures, then seeking to impose control

through permanent structure is suicide” [17]; [18].

A. Statement of the problem

Three Nigerian commercial banking organizations

namely: - First bank Plc (FBN), Union bank of Nig. Plc

(UBN) and United bank for Africa Plc (UBA)

redesigned their transaction-processing systems by

installing FLEXCUBE, which was the latest

information technology in Nigeria’s banking sector as at

the year 2000. Installation of the new information

system was for quick data processing and electronic

transfer of accurate information to appropriate decision

making locations; reposition and take advantage of

opportunities in the changing banking environment. The

business strategy was for improved customer service

delivery. The estimated banks’ investment in this

information technology as at 31/12/2000 was put at

N1.7b. These banks made these investments in

information technology yet had an average productivity

growth of 0.7%, which is significantly lower than the

growth rate achieved in the 1990’s, and much lower

than the much achieved by the manufacturing sector,

that invested significantly less in IT during the same

period (Aduba,1997). Implementation of this

information technology did not seem to be satisfactory

in the banking industry. These banks seemed to have

difficulties in implementing these information

technology packages as experienced by their customers

such that even after adopting Flexcube, operating costs

constantly rose, productivity decreased and service

delivery to customers continued to deteriorate. The

unsatisfactory output of Flexcube in these banks became

perplexing in view of the huge investment and

management desire to use the latest technology to

render efficient banking services to their customers.

To investigate this implementation problem, we

visited some of the branches of these banks, and

observed long customer waiting time. Consequently, we

explored the perception and attitude of the

contemporary bank customers in a survey and found

that; out of 1090 respondents, 64% think that lots of

inefficiencies exist even with the newly introduced

information technology. This shows that the main

concerns of customers are long queues and delays in

service delivery (59%) and this reflects their switching

pattern. For instance, the study shows that 51 % of

customers have switched banks between January and

December, 2003 with the most important reason for

switching as inefficient service/delay (43%). Thus, the

key attributes of customers’ favorite banks are quick

service/prompt attention/no delays (37%), efficient and

accurate service/no mistakes 25%.

These bring to focus the issue of how to successfully

implement change in Nigerian organizations. Research

efforts of authorities such as [19]; [20]; [21]; [22] that

attempt to establish a link between information

technology and business performance from the point of

view of organizational culture have consistently been

inconclusive. The question is how does organizational

culture influence successful implementation of business

process reengineering in Nigeria? Can this problem be

traced to hardware, software or the operating personnel

and management failure to accept technology’s lead into

the organization willingly?




1) Research questions.

In this study, we addressed the following sub-problems

with a view to answering the main research question:

1) – How does integration of the new information

system processes with human activities improve

customer service?

2) – How does management understanding of the

role of organizational culture, enhance implementation

of BPR?

3) – How does management recognition and

support for the new Information Technology

dramatically improve customer service delivery?

4) – How does cooperation between the users and

the change agents enhance workers knowledge of the

new information system?

B. Assumptions of the study

Figure 1 McKinsey’s 7 S Model adopted from [27]

Our guiding thesis asserts that organizational and

personal value systems shape the reengineering of

business processes. Without reflection and evaluation of

the impact of values, change becomes conditioned by

the perspectives of management and their managers

based on their assumptions of business and transaction

process redesign.

Taking our bearing from the ideas of [23],

“implementation of organizational change means

building conditions for appropriate use of new solutions

and taking them in use to affect the organization. That is

to say, change implementation is considered as part of

change management, a widely used generic term

referring to systemic approach to planning,

implementing and controlling organizational change”.

According to [24]; [25]; [26]; [27], McKinsey’s 7 S

model (fig. 1) provides a generic model of

organizations.

If BPR has significant impact on all of the other 6

dimensions then it would be reasonable to assume that:

1) BPR involves significant organizational

change; and that

2) It has a significant impact on, or dependency

on, organizational culture.

This research is anchored on the second assumption

that BPR has a significant impact on or dependency on

organizational culture. Given the hypothesis that BPR

involves significant organizational change then one

would expect BPR to impact all the dimensions of an

organization. It is also assumed that the problems

associated with IS management are related not only to

size of the organization but also to the level of

investments in information technology. This assumption

is a priori and still lacks empirical evidence. Hence, in

order to comply with this hypothesis, the largest

organizations as those that use IT extensively were

included in the study.

C. Objectives of the study

The main objective of this study is to explore the key

human resources management initiatives undertaken by

organizations in the process of redesigning their

transaction processing systems as they try to operate in

turbulent environments. To this end, we formulated the

following specific objectives:-

1. To find out whether integration of the new

information system processes with human activities will

improve customer service.

2. To ascertain whether management

understanding of the role of organizational culture will

enhance implementation of BPR.

3. To find out whether management recognition

and support for the new Information Technology will

dramatically improve customer service delivery.

4. To ascertain whether cooperation between the

users and the change agents will enhance workers

knowledge of the new information systems.

D. Hypotheses of the study

Based on the research model and a study of the relevant

literature, we developed the following hypotheses to

solve the research problem.

Ho: There is no significant difference in customer

service if human activities are integrated with the new

information system processes.

Ho: Management understanding of the role of

organizational culture will not increase effective

implementation of BPR as a change initiative?

Ho: Management recognition and support for the

new IT will not dramatically improve customer service

delivery.

Strategy

Structure

Shared Values

Staff

Style

Skills

Systems




Ho: Cooperation between the users and the change

agents will not enhance workers knowledge of the new

information system.

II. LITERATURE REVIEW

A. Theoretical Foundation of the study

Implementing change in an organization is a topic

that involves numerous different actions related to

various elements of the organizational system. The

theoretical domains that provide specific models and

suggestions for carrying out organizational change

include: Organizational Development (OD),

Organizational Transformation (OT), Business Process

Reengineering (BPR), Project Management and

Organizational Learning

The main differences between the theories relate to

the content and outcome of the change. The change

process types (planned and emergent) offer some basic

view points to change implementation revealing that

summarizing or putting together the different theories of

organizational change is challenging. This is because

rather than being a uniform model, each theory is a

collection of somewhat ambiguous concepts, guidelines

and frameworks. However, despite the different

viewpoints, the theories overlap and complement each

other. Due to the different origin of each approach, the

main difference is related to the targeted outcome of the

change.

Whereas Organizational Development theories look

at change from the behavioral point of view,

emphasizing employee well being along organizational

effectiveness, theories of Organizational Transformation

aim at large scale change as a means of strategic

management and highlight the relationship between

organizational change and corporate strategy.

However, the outcome of change is of secondary

importance in this study as long as the change is

beneficial, and the focus is on the process of reaching

the outcome. In other words, what shall it profit an

organization if it adopts a new technology and the

objectives of acquiring the technology are not achieved?

Thus on the subject of implementation, OD highlights

participative diagnosis of the improvement needs,

careful planning of both the target state as well as the

interventions for reaching it. The phase models

describing the change process are a focal element, as

well as the change agent role supported by top

management.

The theory of OT has grown from the critics of OD.

The contribution of OT to the actual implementation

consists of suggesting change initiation not based on a

diagnosis, but on a strategic intent affected by external

change. OT diminishes the importance of the

implementation process, the view of sequential process

dominates also in OT, although many authors have

called for a more adaptive and flexible process that

facilitates learning in the uncertain conditions of today's

business environment.

BPR theory views implementation rather similarly

with OT, but more clearly relies on the phase models

and holistic approach. While [28] and [29] are

extremely doubtful of making a complete and holistic

definition of the target state as a detached task before

implementation, holistic planning and implementation

approach is the definite view in BPR. The BPR theory

essentially views change as a project and supports the

assumption of the traditional project management theory

of being able to determine the target of the project in a

detailed and exact manner at the start. Project

management relies on planning, control and monitoring

and considers a project successful when the execution

and outcome conform to the plan. When considering

change in business processes, the Business Process

Reengineering paradigm cannot be ignored as it

complements the behavioral aspects with the more

content-specific elements as well as provides practical

guidelines for implementation thereby concentrating on

measurable performance improvements through

business process change.

Project Management is a generic theory for carrying

out any temporary task that stresses the planning and

control of the execution. Thus, if an intentional change

effort is typically carried out as a project, the relevant

parts of the Project Management theory are brought to

bear. The theory of Organizational learning then

considers change implementation as a part of learning

and provides a valuable and differentiating viewpoint. It

does not explicitly restrict its object of change, but aims

at an adaptive and continuously renewing organization.

Organizational learning however emphasizes that

change is carried out on all levels and parts of the

organization while each member of the organization

learns besides their practical work. Rather than

concentrating on controlling change, the role of

management is to foster circumstances that· support the

organization members in learning and generating new

ideas and knowledge.

Although [29] link the dilemma of balancing between

the two extremes of planned and emergent change to

complexity theory, we focus on activity theory based

framework for studying user needs and for iteratively

evaluating developing technology.

The Activity theory is a cross-scientific theory for

studying man as an actor in a cultural-historical context.

The approach is based on a specific view of human

activity (the Cultural-Historical Activity Theory). It is

based on the idea of the dual process of man and

artifacts shaping and being shaped by social and

physical environment [30]. Activity theory offers tools

to analyze the problem and possibilities of technology.

“When a new product is introduced to a user activity




system, it causes implications within and between the

components of the system. Analysis of the different

types of problems and opportunities in the context of

use helps to show not only the existing needs and

opportunities but also the impact of the new product to

the everyday life of the user”.

When studying how the existing theories see change

implementation, the focus in this study is on the

dominant views within each discipline. Yet the critics

and calls for improvements presented by numerous

authors like [31];[32];[33]; [34]; [35] have been used as

a foundation for developing the new implementation

approach.

In addition to the critics, alternative implementation

approaches suggested by [36] and [37] broadened the

view of successful change management. Nonetheless,

these approaches provide alternatives within a specific

theoretical discipline, proposing an alternative for OD

approach and [37] for strategy making and OT thus

leaving many issues open for further research. Our

evolutionary approach thus lies on involving the views

across the discipline: elaborating the common pattern 'of

the seven elements of Mckinsey’s framework and

comparing the characteristics of the different theories

based on the elements. This provided a unique insight in

the study and eliminated the common problem of the

difference between how people think about change and

how they implement it in practice as noted by [38]; [39].

The ultimate aim according to all the theories is

anyhow improved business performance and the

variance stems from different assumptions of the means,

whether it should be employee empowerment,

streamlined processes, ability to learn or something else.

B. Research Context

The research constructs are defined based on the

presented change process types, planned and emergent,

the theoretical basis of implementation (OD, OT, BPR

etc.) Using the quoted examples' from the BPR

literature, the descriptions of BPR closely match the

definitions of each of the elements of McKinsey’s 7 S

organizational models. With this model a full BPR

program impacts 6 of 7 of the organizational

dimensions, and that it is driven by the 7th element,

Strategy. One can infer then, that a full BPR program

will involve significant organizational change. Because

McKinsey places Shared Values at the heart of an

organization one can also infer, in particular, that a full

BPR program will involve significant organizational

culture change.

C. Organizational Change

The most common way to categorize organizational

change is perhaps based on the radicalism of change

[40]. The classification dates back to the model of

evolution by [41] which was based on incremental,

cumulative and continuous change. [41] model of

gradualism has been challenged with that of punctuated

equilibrium by [42]. The punctuated equilibrium

paradigm considers evolution as relatively long periods

of stability, punctuated by compact periods of

qualitative, metamorphic change. The periods of

stability are referred to as equilibrium and a highly

durable underlying order or deep structure which

persists and limits change during the equilibrium

periods. The fundamental issue in punctuated

equilibrium is whether change happens within the

existing deep structure or disassembles it. According to

the model, change obeying the existing order is

incremental and gradual as opposed to revolutionary,

transformational change [42]. Other concepts of

radicalism of organizational change are summarized in

table 1 below as adopted from [43].

TABLE 1.CLASSIFICATION IN THE ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE LITERATURE (ADOPTED FROM DUNPHY AND STACE, 2007)

Classification Essential deference

Gersick, 1991 Gradual change

Revolutionary change

Sustains existing deep structure or underlying order

Breaks and replaces existing structure or underlying

order

Durphey and

Stace (1988)

Incremental (evolutionary)

change

Transformational

(revolutionary) change

Continuous, small

Discontinuous, large-scale

Levy (1986) First-order change

Second-order change

Change within the basic rules of the system

Paradigmatic change that involves change in the

“materials” (the rules of the rules) of the system

Tushman et al

(1986)

Convergent (incremental,

evolutionary) change

Frame braking

(transformational change,

upheaval)

Compatible with the existing organizational structure

Discontinuous system wide. Concurrent shift in

strategy, power, structure and controls




Fiol and Lylos

(1985)

organizational

learning

Lower-level learning

Higher-level learning

Behavioural change, occurs within a given

organizational structure

More cognitive change, adjusts overall rules and norms

and not only specific activities or behaviours

Miller & Friesen

(1984)

Evolutionary (incremental)

Revolutionary (dramatic)

Low number of contemporary change, piecemeal

High number of contemporary and extreme changes,

multi-faceted

Greiner (1972)

organizational

life cycle

Evolution

Revolution

Uses the dominant management style to achieve stable

growth

Due to a problem, creates a new management pattern

before stable growth can continue

Confusion of the fundamental difference has resulted

in disagreement of the terminology and the relationship

between radical and gradual change: are they

alternative, nested or complementary concepts?

Whereas [43] see both gradual and radical change as

different types of evolution, authors like [44] consider

evolutionary change as an opposite to radical change

adding that large scale, strategic change requires radical

change and that “the interdependency between structural

elements of an organization requires multifaceted

change that is expensive, so rational companies

postpone change until a critical state of incongruence

with the environment is reached. Therefore, as change

occurs seldom it must be radical to remedy the serious

mismatch between the organization and its

environment”[44].

Researchers such as [45]; [46] claim that failing to

give priority to human factors at a time of radical

change can break an existing social contract within an

organization. This is exacerbated if people are asked for

ideas in the change process but receive little feedback or

action on their suggestions.

[45] clearly see a new culture as the outcome of BPR

and the process of implementing a new process. “These

force new behavior which will, in due course, change

the culture and the characteristics of the organization.

They map this out in their business system diamond: 1)

business processes that determine 2) the jobs and

structures which are then 3) managed and measured to

4) shape values and beliefs”.

[46] On the other hand argue that “change

management requires a clear understanding of the

existing culture and behavior patterns of the people in a

business, and a deliberate attempt to change this into

some other form of behavior” and “Perhaps the most

important value that BPR either forces or reinforces is

teamwork”. Adding that “one of the key jobs of

business unit leaders is to build and foster that trust, to

reward trust, and to force those who cannot learn to trust

and be part of a team to leave” [46] also recognize that

organizational culture is the: “unspoken, collective rules

and beliefs ... discerned ... through ... language,

symbols, myths, and rituals” and is held within

“individual belief systems [as] the attitudes and mental

models .... [that] shape their attitudes towards others and

their behavior on the job”. They believe that “changing

embedded corporate values is perhaps the most

powerful form of change” but agree that it is not easy

and can take time. It also “requires organization

executives to demonstrate leadership” and “requires

fundamental changes in the values held by executives”.

[47] Highlights a key question of this thesis: ‘should

cultural change precede BPR or is cultural change the

outcome of BPR’? With regard to BPR induced change,

as opposed to other change programs, [47] argues that:

“reengineering change often appears illogical. By its

very nature, proactive change is harder to rationalize

and communicate than reactive change where you can

point to specific events which have already occurred

and are having a clear effect on the business. Indeed,

initial responses are emotional - anger, fear, insecurity -

though, over time, they may become accepted as

logical”. [47] goes on to highlight the consequential

difficulties of managers’ use of BPR and, once

implemented, the resulting ambiguity in “job

definitions, responsibilities and expectations”, as well as

the loss of “career ladders” and “power bases”,

particularly for managers. In Nigeria, we are concerned

that some companies see no benefit of BPR in that it

“creates a culture of insecurity” which keeps people ‘on

their toes’ and suggests “a more positive approach is to

link rewards and remuneration more closely to

Customer satisfaction or team performance”.

[48] Argue that “BPR can mean losing one’s job”.

[49] see the “machine metaphor” as the dominant

metaphor underpinning BPR. They berate some BPR

writers and practitioners for: “giving the impression that

staff savings take precedence over employee

empowerment and argue that “This [the job impact of

BPR] should perhaps be considered from the

perspective of those employees who no longer have

jobs”. These social scientists see culture, or at least the

neglect of people, as an inhibitor to effective

implementation of BPR. They promote soft systems

methodologies (SSM) that use “cultural stream analyses

... to establish which changes are ‘culturally feasible’”.




According to these authors “successful uses of the

[SSM] methodology have been both participative and

incremental in nature. Incrementalism derives from its

assumption that culture and politics are ‘givens’”. Thus

the implication is that culture is a root metaphor.

D. Evolutionary approach for change implementation

The description of the new implementation approach

provides the basis for assessing it. Table 2 reflects the

evaluation of the extant planned and emergent change

implementation with the new approach and illustrates

how it enables combining the strengths of both extant

approaches and yet avoids the weakness, which in a

rather straightforward way counted as the negations of

the strengths of the other approach.

As the approach combines the strengths of both

planned and emergent approaches, it contributes to

answering the calls for incorporating the extreme views

of change management: top-down, externally driven,

imposed central and lateral change in contrast with

organic, endogenous and local change [49]; [50]. Also

[51] see strategy making as a process of continuous

adaptation that looks for a balance between offering too

much or too little direction and between the benefits of

autonomy without losing the benefits of scale and

scope. Accordingly, [51] note that much important

organizational change is simultaneously deductive and

inductive taking both from conceptual to concrete and

vice versa.

TABLE 2 STRENGTHS OF THE EVOLUTIONARY APPROACH IN RELATION TO THE PLANNED AND EMERGENT APPROACHES

In the other extreme, the threat is the so-called

complexity catastrophe: the agents of a system the

numerous interconnections between the agents make it

difficult to control the effect of individual agents on the

whole system. [28] applied the theory in strategy

making in organizations, emphasizing that” rigidity and

structure stem from more qualitative features like the

organizational configuration and discipline. Thus, in the

context of organization, the agents’ effort to affect the

overall system seems more relevant than the number of

interconnections between them” [28]. In between the

two extremes, there is an intermediate ‘on an edge of

chaos’ where a system never quite settles into a stable

equilibrium but never quite either. In the edge of chaos

the system effectively changes to stay in relation to its

constantly changing environment.

Coevolutionary Approach

Challenge

Com mon direction

Focus

Relevancy

Concreteness

Co-ordinated, but decentralized

Control

Synergy

Exploitation of knowledge on operative activities and

local context

Commitment of employees

Dynamic

Systematic

Guides to action

Responsive to changing conditions

Systemic

Consideration of interrelationships

Learning through incremental changes

Enables partial solutions

Change

advancement

Process

Management

Structure

Initiation

Planned implementation:

Designed vision


Central

Emergent implementation:

Problem or opportunity

Emergent implementation

Local


Linear and sequential


Continuous


Holistic


Incremental




Fig 2 Competing on the edge strategy and edge of chaos (adapted

from [28].

The edge of chaos is characterized by some but not

too much structure. [28] defines the edge of chaos as ‘a

natural state between order and chaos a grand

compromise between structure and surprise’. The edge

of chaos fosters evolution, a process where the system

changes as its agents interact with agents of other

systems. In other words the agents evolve as they

influence the systems that they adapt to. “The

continuous change processes operating throughout the

organization are not coordinated by any overall plan and

the incremental changes are not part of any holistic

design. The approach enables capitalizing the

knowledge throughout the organization, is responsive to

changing condition and to differing needs. The benefits

are flexible individual activities and innovation, but at

the cost of efficiency through missed economies of scale

and synergy” [28].

On the other extreme in planned change, all change

activities are directed by an overall vision and the

people implementing the change form a hierarchical

organization controlled by central management. The

implementation processes are guided by a

comprehensive plan making it difficult to adjust to

changing needs or condition. As well the solutions form

a holistic design that determines all the individual

changes. The planned approach provides a-common

direction for each part of the organization control

through central management and possibility to

efficiently share the solutions and methods across the

sub-units once created. As well a systematic process is

more easily explicated and thus disseminated

throughout the various units of the organization and

holistic implementation prevents it from sub-

optimization. Thus the strengths of the planned

approach count as efficiency through economies of

scale and synergy benefits, but it lacks flexibility,

innovation and ability to fulfill differing individual

needs.

In contrast, the evolutionary implementation approach

conceptualized in this study incorporates some structure

yet leaving room for flexibility and adaptation. Change

initiation based on a challenge is about a balance

between predicting the future by exhaustive design of a

vision and chaotic reaction to the problems and

opportunities emerging in the environment. “The co-

ordinated but distributed management structure then

meets the challenge of taking advantage of the synergies

across the organizational units and yet maintaining

enough independence so that the unique and changing

needs of the particular units can be successfully met.

The dynamic implementation process and systemic

change advancement enable both innovation and

execution by keeping most activities loosely constructed

but having a few structure points based on the

standardized process alternatives and implementation

targets”[52]; [53].

Analogous with the benefits of the competing on the

edge strategy the evolutionary change can be assumed

to feature an advantageous change implementation

approach that incorporates both efficiency through

economies of scale and synergy benefits as well as

flexibility, individual success and innovation as

illustrated in fig. 11.

Figure 3 Evolutionary approach for change implementation (Source: Researcher)

Edge of choas (effective adaptation)

Competition on the edge

Improvement

Co-adaptation through focused collaboration Regeneration

Experientation

Time pacing to find rhythm of change

Too little structure: the chance trap

Too little collaboration: the star trap

Ignoring the past: the disconnect trapToo much reacting the insight trap

Too much structure: the bureaucratic trap

Too much collaboration: the lockstep trap

Stuck in the past: the over connect trap Too much planning : the foresight trap

Structure (rigid order)

Choas(complexity catastrophe)

Piloting Implementation

P ro g ra m m a n a g e m en t

Challenge

Co-ordination

Standardization

Local Rollout




E. Issues from review of literature

The research objectives concerning the linkages of

environment, business strategy; redesign and

performance are well documented in literature.

However, there is a gap in the linkage between the role

of HR functions, evolution of HR strategies and the

association of these strategies with redesign variables

that are largely exploratory. There is also little

knowledge about them due to little empirical research

and theory development in this area. Clearly the

analysis provided above is rather general in character

and individual writers depart from the stereotype to

offer wider insights. The stereotype is not exclusive

insofar as aspects of other paradigms and perspectives

are often observable. A broader brush must be used to

paint BPR to offer a recognizable picture.

Despite embracing some of the ideas of systemic

modeling, in BPR the perceived (real) world and the

conceptual world are not differentiated sufficiently

clearly, the result being an uncomfortable mix of hard

and soft systems thinking. Surfacing and challenging

assumptions (the ‘traditional’ way) will normally be a

prerequisite for ‘visioning’ radical Change ('breaking

the chain'), implying the need for a methodology for

working with mental models, perceptions and

perspectives. It is probably unreasonable to assume that

people can reliably be manipulated.

Although there is a concern for employee

empowerment in some parts of the BPR literature, given

the dominance of the functionalist approach and the

machine metaphor, we can safely conclude that only

those employees who survive BPR can be empowered.

Cultural and political implications of large-scale

redundancy are not considered. The concern with

employee empowerment goes hand in hand with

recognition of the need for cultural change. The trouble

is that these values and beliefs do not promote the

performance that customer-oriented organizations

require. They are inconsistent with the new processes

created in a reengineered environment: and unless the

values change, new processes, no matter how well

designed, will never work. Changing values is as

important a part of reengineering as changing processes.

The following is a summary of the most significant

unanswered questions raised from review of literature in

relation to the previous research efforts on change

management.

>Why has the definition of BPR become a contentious

issue? Is there practical value in developing an agreed

definition of BPR? If so, what issues should that

definition address?

>How important is it to make comparative assessments

of the approaches and values of BPR, TQM, HRM and

other management concepts (like Theory X/Theory Y)?

How can such comparisons help guide organizations

towards the most appropriate solution for their needs?

>Can organizational/national/regional characteristics be

defined which indicate which particular management

approach (es) are most likely to succeed in particular

contexts?

>What is the actual BPR success/failure rate? Is there an

agreed framework which can be defined as a realistic

basis for comparative assessments?

>Does the success/failure rate provide any valid

indication of the value of the BPR approach as such?

Why does BPR succeed or fail?

>How widely applicable is the radical BPR paradigm?

Is it possible to identify the organizational and other

environmental characteristics which make such change

more likely to succeed and how can the high risks

involved in radical change be managed effectively?

F. The issues that the above literature research has

highlighted include:

1. Why are employee’s views and feelings so unknown,

and/or under-reported during change initiatives?

2. How do in-placement programs for stayers compare

to out-placement programs for leavers?

3. Does management think organizational culture can be

changed?

4. Which BPR attributes influence success?

G. This study therefore brings the following to the

debate?

1. Change program initiation based on the

challenge of integration of the automation processes

with human activities according to the existing HR and

organizational change management theories.

2. Coordinated, but decentralized management

structure that understands the role of Organizational

culture within the context of change management

initiatives.

3. Dynamic process with high level management

support for skills and abilities that match the system

redesign towards successful implementation of the new

technology.

4. Systemic change advancement that enables

systems operators to understand the system for

improved customer service delivery.

Much of the literature does concur that change

is increasingly impacting many organizations; however

it is still a relatively new concept to many people. The

position adopted then is that change may have a

moderate impact, on organizations now, and of those

that have adopted it, all the elements of the framework

would be utilized to some extent.

This review of the complex nature of culture has

shown the widely varying views of what culture is from

the visible artifacts and behavior patterns to invisible




behavior norms, values, assumptions and beliefs. From

basic tenets as to whether culture is a root metaphor

embedded deep within an organization's beliefs and

values, an external, almost uncontrollable, variable, or

as an independent variable that can be manipulated.

These relate to whether researchers take an objective

stance that see humans as a responding mechanism or, a

subjective stance that humans are transcendental being,

or some mid-point view.

Given the divergent views, there was disagreement

about -whether culture could be measured and if so

what should be measured and how. A brief history of

culture research showed how the theory had moved

from systems based contingency, to the dynamics of

change, through diversity to post-modernism. Some

justified only measuring visible manifestations whilst

others proposed joint exploration to uncover deeply held

assumptions. The danger of measuring climate instead

of culture was highlighted.

As to the role and value of culture, consensus view is

that culture directly impacted performance and was

therefore a variable to be controlled and aligned to

strategy. Others highlighted the anxiety reducing value

of culture to the individual and the sense of belonging it

gave. In organizational change, many advocated a dual

hard analytical plus soft cultural approach, although

systems people tended to implement the former before

the latter. To various extents, the literature also revealed

that:

>Not everybody will perceive the benefits associated

with BPR in the same way and there may be certain

factors that can influence the perceptions of the benefits

that BPR can bring.

>There exist barriers to implementing and sustaining

BPR including a lack of understanding of organizational

culture, globalization, information overload, and

justification.

Finally, certain sections of the literature presented

mixed and inconclusive evidence. It failed to suggest

with any authority, the relative position of companies

using BPR. Nor did it make any correlations with

respect to the extent of adoption of the change

components, or the relationship of industry type or

organizational size in terms of revenue, and the extent

of adoption.

III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This study is a social science descriptive survey

research to test out why well-tested scientific

management theories in advanced countries do not seem

to be applicable in developing economies like Nigeria.

This research focused on the issue of how to

successfully implement organizational change in

Nigeria i.e. information systems reengineering

according to the existing theories of human resource and

organizational change management. The research issues

in this study are closed and require numbers as data to

solve. This means that the proposition presented can be

answered through statistical testing techniques of

measurable constructs. These informed our choice and

use' of quantitative research procedures of survey data

[54] .

The domain of Business Process (Information

Systems) Reengineering requires a multidisciplinary

approach to studying the range of socio-technical

phenomena, which determine their [i.e. information

systems as entities] development, use and effects in

organizations and society. To this end, we drew together

three approaches - interpretive field studies, grounded

theory, and hermeneutics to explore the data in depth

and to triangulate methods to strengthen our

interpretations.

A. Research Design

This empirical research was positivist, descriptive

and confirmatory. It is a descriptive survey research to

determine success or failure of information system

reengineering in selected banks that adopted the

information technology (Flexcube) as a change

technique as well as the extent that BPR thinking has

permeated into the Nigerian banking industry.

B. Area of the study

This study targeted a finite population spread all over

Nigeria. All the respondent bank branches numbering

521 were selected. However, a total of 21 branches

located in very remote areas under the Federal

Government rural banking scheme were excluded.

These remote branches do not have electricity and

telecommunications facilities and are yet to be

connected to their respective banks’ new technology.

They were excluded from the research for obvious

reasons.

C. Population of the study

Available data from the Human Resources

departments of the three organizations under study

showed that the total work force of information

technology managers as well as managers of the

information technology users as at 30/06/2004 stood at

1500. We studied the entire population. This target

population was chosen for consistency with previous

studies [3;36;54]. While we noted that this group’s

perspectives may be somewhat more technologically

biased than the average workers, they were also in a

position to be in touch with the specifics of BPR plans

that were being introduced in their organizations.

Working with such respondents was consistent with the

research goal to identify the opinions of such people as

to how sustainable performance can be achieved during

an organizational redesign process with sustainable

implementation of human resources strategies [36].




D. Method of data collection

Sources of data

a) Secondary source

The first stage of the study was a search of secondary

sources of information to summarize the state of

knowledge on this topic. This includes reviewing audio

training tapes, CD ROMS, and participating in

conferences of the selected banks. This approach has

been used on its own for systems redesign [51] or as a

way of providing data for further analysis using

distributed cognition [34]. Although a deeper

understanding of the banks’ strategies was gained from

these sources, it also allowed a further understanding of

BPR in general. Resources of research groups such as

Nigerian Institute of Management (NIM), Chartered

Institute of Bankers (CIB) and Federal Research

Institute were also utilized, as well as Intranet and

Internet searches in which several BPR surveys were

located.

b) Primary source

We used this method involving direct user reactions

to obtain various qualitative data about users’

experiences with systems (either immediately or a little

while after use) by utilizing Likert five point scale. This

method has been used particularly as a way to capture

data before further analysis and to improve a

commercial product by collecting user feedback [3].

Their subjectivity (in that direct user opinions are being

collected) makes them useful and limited. However, we

did guard against the flaws of the method by using a

large group of people and by wording questions so that

they contain various ‘consistency checks’.

E. Method of data analysis

We used descriptive statistical analysis by

summarizing, describing information (data) and

presenting them the way they are. All statistical

analyses were done using a statistical package for the

social sciences (SPSS) version 8. All of the questions

from the survey were coded as variables and input into

SPSS for quantitative analysis.

Several open-ended questions were used in the survey.

We used content analysis method to examine and

interpret the non-numerical information. Both

parametric and non-parametric tests of significance

were utilized to ensure no significant differences were

found in the means of the respective survey instruments

expected. Normal sampling distribution supported the

use of parametric (independent samples) T-Test; whilst

the use of a nonparametric (chi-square) test was

warranted for data that did not meet the assumptions of

parametric statistics.

ANOVA was used to study variables with an interval

or ratio measurement level. The ANOVA produced an

F- value and significance value that indicated whether

the probability of the differences between certain groups

is due to chance.

A Pearson Correlation was also used to determine the

significance of association between the specified

variables. All statistical tests were performed at the 95%

confidence level. This means that results were

considered significant if they yielded a significance

level less than .05.

Reliability for all of the continuous variables was

established using Cronbach’s Alpha. Any Alpha score

less than 0.7 was deemed unreliable and removed from

further analysis.

F. Hypotheses Testing

In this study, the entire hypotheses were tested

following the same procedure. The decision rule is

based on whether the computed value of the test statistic

exceeds the computed value of the same statistics. If so,

the null hypothesis will be rejected, but if the t-critical is

greater, the null hypothesis will not be rejected.

Therefore, reject Ho in favor of Hi if the computed

value of the statistics exceeds the critical or table value.

Otherwise, do not reject the Ho.

G. Presentation of results

Our survey was conducted in two stages. Stage one

included mailing out the survey and cover letter. The

second stage was to follow up with a reminder letter

encouraging further responses. Initially 126 valid

surveys were received out of 1500 sent. After excluding

48 surveys marked return to sender, an 8.7% response

rate was achieved. This low initial response rate raised

concerns about the generalisability of the results. In this

situation, we used the strategy of mailing out reminder

letters to the entire population.As an added incentive,

another copy of the survey was made available to them.

At the close of the second return period, 549 additional

completed surveys were received, and 4 were marked

return to sender. One of the surveys was excluded from

any analysis as it was only partially completed. This left

a total of 670 respondents. All variables in the survey

were coded and entered into SPSS.

Surveys received pre-reminder letter were marked, as

group 1, and those received post-reminder letter were

marked group 2. Before the results from the two groups

were combined, non-response bias was tested for. Non-

response bias implies that those who did not respond

may differ from those who did respond thereby creating

bias and weakening validity. To limit non-response bias,

both parametric and non-parametric tests were done to

ensure that there were no significant differences

between the mean results of the two groups. To do this,

the data were divided based on their normal or non-

normal distribution using normal probability plots to

compare the cumulative distribution of actual data




values with the cumulative distribution of a normal

distribution.

For normally distributed data, an Independent

Samples T-Test was used. This tested the significance

of the differences in the means between the two

independent groups, by determining if the

administration of the reminder letter, lead to

significantly different results to the absence of the later.

For non-normally distributed data, the Chi-Square Test

of goodness fit was used to test for the differences in the

means between the two independent groups. No

significant differences were found between the means of

group 1 and 2, using parametric or non- parametric

tests. As no non-response bias was apparent, it was

considered reasonable to combine the two samples for a

total population size of 670 and a response rate of 45%.

The following analysis and discussions applies to the

population of 670 responses.

H. Personal Demographics

The four main positions held by respondents were

information systems or information technology manager

(58%), CIO (13%), and general manager (10%). About

9% of respondents were supervisors. Significant

ANOVA results were not found for the position held

variable, with all of the p > .05. This indicates that the

position by the respondent did not have a significant

effect on any of the perception statements. Respondents

had been with the organization between 6-10 years.

75% of the respondents had been with the organization

for an average of 3-5 years. The remaining 25% who

were also with the organization for less than one year

posed a problem, as one of the qualifying conditions to

participate in the research was to have worked for the

organization for at least one year.

More than half of the respondents agree they have a

lot of power in decision-making in their organization

compared to 13% who disagree. Almost 27% of people

chose neutral. 87% enjoy being involved in decision

making in the organization. Overall, the mean age for

respondents’ was 36 to 45 years (42%), with the next

highest responding group being 46-55 years.

TABLE 3 ANOVA RESULTS: PERCEPTION STATEMENTS

Statement (IS importance) Age (years) Mean Std. Dev. F Sig.

Reducing duplication of work 18-25

26-35

36-45

46-55

56-65

3.50

1.82

1.78

1.90

2.50

.707

.982

.831

.683

1.00

Overall 1.92 .858 2.610 *.044

Improved decision making 18-25 3.0 0

26-35 1.91 .701

36-45 1.75 .750

46-55 2.04 .844

56-65 2.75 .957

Overall 1.97 .816 2.506 *.049

* Significant at p < .05

More males than' females participated (84%). The top

three levels of education achieved overall were a

university degree (28%), followed by a

Diploma/Certificate (22%) and Masters Degree (21 %).

There were no significant differences in the results for

the level of education held by the respondent with

significance levels of p > 0.05. This means that the level

of education did not impact significantly on the answers

given to any of the 14 questions.

Significant ANOVA results were found for the age

variable on two of the perception statements. The

importance of BPR for reducing the duplication of

work, F (4, 62) = 2.61, P < .05, and improved decision-

making, F (4, 62) = 2.51, P < .05 (Table 4- 6). The 18-

25 year age group, are likely to believe that IS

reengineering is not too important in reducing the

duplication of work. Ages between 26 and 55 years see

it, as somewhat important and 55 to 65 year old

respondents tend to remain neutral. For the variable

improved decision-making, the youngest and oldest age

range tended to remain somewhat neutral, whilst the

ages between 26 and 55 view it as somewhat important.

espondents were asked to view 14 statements and rank

how important the information systems management is

in achieving them. This question set was reliable with

an Alpha of .9064 (n = 670). The Likert scale

percentage results for each statement are presented in

Table 4- 5. A visual examination of the data for this

variable allowed the researcher to subjectively

determine that the respondents fell into 5 main groups,

therefore this variable was recoded using SPSS recode

into new variable function, into those groups.




Organizational Demographics

The first step was to perform descriptive statistics. The

results yielded several findings for the category of

organizational demographics. There were originally 20

possible categories for branch type. A visual

examination of the' data through frequency counts and a

pie graph, determined that the respondents fell into 7

main groups. Therefore this variable was re-coded using

SPSS ‘recode into new variable’ function, into those

groups category ‘other’ held 4.8% of the branch

responses. As can be seen in Graph 1, the largest branch

representation came from the big branches (A - D).

GRAPH 1 Type of Branch

Almost 75% of the branches surveyed did not have a

specific role responsible for managing change. Of those

who did, about 10% was from an existing role of

information system or information technology manager,

or chief information officer, whilst, only 6% were actual

change managers, or equivalent titles. The majority of

branch physical premises consisted of some employees

having their own separate offices (75%). Many of the

offices contained cubicle type partitions (54%). Only

12% report having a completely open-design meaning

that there is a lot of open floor space. About 63% of

respondents reported having a hierarchical

organizational structure as opposed to a flat structure,

and almost 48% report the organizations as, centralized.

About 45% reported that the general management style

in the organizations was that of formal procedures and

rules, 33% have few rules and considerable autonomy,

and 22% have cooperative and group oriented

management styles.

I. Test statistic

In order to accept or reject the null hypothesis we

determined the value of the test statistic from sample

information using the following formula:

fe

fefo2

2

Where: Fo is an observed frequency in a particular

category

Fe is an expected frequency in a particular

category

CRITICAL VALUE

This is the level of significance at K-l degrees of

freedom (df) =K-l Where K= the number of categories.

= 5 -1 x 5 - 1

= 4 x 4 i.e. 16 degrees of freedom:

X216 .05 =2 6.296

DECISION RULE

Do not reject the null if the computed value of Chi-

square. is less than or equal to the critical value

otherwise reject the null. In other words, do not reject

H0 if the calculated value X216, .05 X

216, .05 = 26.296.

HYPOTHESIS 1:

Question: Do you agree that integration of the new

information system processes with human activities will

improve customer service?

TABLE 4.0 LIKERT SCORE FOR HYPOTHESIS I

Description No %

Strongly agree 110 16.42

Agree 253 37.61

Neutral 87 12.99

Disagree 109 16.27

Strongly disagree 112 16.71

TOTAL 670 100

D 14.9%

C 14.9%

H 4.8%

F 9.0%

E 7.5%

A 20.9%

G 7.2%

B 20.9%




TABLE 4.1 IMPACT OF INTEGRATION ON CUSTOMER SERVICE

Description No %

Very positively 160 23.88

Positively 214 31.94

Neutral 60 8.96

Negatively 146 21.79

Very negatively 90 13.43

TOTAL 670 100

TABLE 4:2 IMPROVEMENT OF CUSTOMER SERVICE DUE TO INTEGRATION IMPACT

Integration Very

positively

Positively Neutral Negatively Very

negatively

Total

Strongly

agree

34

(26.27)

20

(35.13)

12

(9.85)

24

(23.91)

20

(14.78)

110

Agree 66

(60.18)

80

(80.49)

34

(33.57)

38

(54.91)

34

(33.85)

252

Neutral 26

(20.78)

34

(27.79)

4

(7.79)

14

(18.97)

9

(11.68)

87

Disagree 24

(26.03)

32

(34.81)

6

(9.76)

37

(23.75)

10

(14.65)

109

Strongly

disagree

14

(26.74)

48

(35.77)

4

(10.03)

34

(24.42)

17

(15.04)

112

TOTAL 160 214 60 146 90 670

The computed value for this hypothesis is 52.55

DECISION

The computed Chi-square of 52.55 is in the rejection area

beyond the critical value of 26.296.

Since X216. 05 = 52.55 is greater than X

216, .05 = 26.296

Therefore, reject H0 and accept H1

This means that there is a significant difference in customer

service if the new information system processes are integrated

with human activities. Rejection of H0 means that it is highly

unlikely that such large discrepancies between the observed

frequencies and the expected ones would appear if the sampled

scores were true.

HYPOTHESIS II

Question: Do you agree that management understanding of the

role of organizational culture will enhance BPR

implementation?

TABLE 4.3 LIKERT SCORE FOR HYPOTHESIS 2

Description No %


Agree 287 42.84

Neutral 82 12.24

Disagree 54 08.06


TOTAL 670 100

TABLE 4.4 UNDERSTANDING THE ROLE OF ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE

Description No %

Highly enhanced 201 30.00

Enhanced 259 38.66

Neutral 82 12.24

Not enhanced 75 11.19

Highly not enhanced 53 07.91

TOTAL 670 100

TABLE 4:5 IMPACT OF CULTURE

Highly

Enhanced

Enhanced Neutral Not

Enhanced

Highly

Not enhanced

Total

Strongly agree 58

(60.01)

78

(77.31)

14

(24.48)

26

(22.38)

18

(15.82)

200

Agree 84

(86.10)

109

(110.94)

36

(35.12)

27

(32.14)

20

(22.70)

287

Neutral 24

(24.6)

37

(31.70)

8

(10.03)

9

(9.18)

7

(6.49)

82

Disagree 17

(16.2)

11

(20.87)

16

(6.61)

7

(6.040

4(18.28) 54




Strongly

disagree

18

(14.1)

24

(18.17)

8

(5.75)

6

(5.26)

4

(3.72)

47

TOTAL 201 259 82 75 53 670


DECISION

The computed Chi-square of 30.23 is in the rejection

area beyond the critical value of 26.296. Since X216, .05

= 30.23 is greater than X216, .05 = 26.296, we reject H0

and accept H1 and concluded that management

understanding of the role of organizational culture

enhances implementation of BPR.

HYPOTHESIS III

Question: Do you agree that management recognition

and support for the information technology will

dramatically improve customer service delivery?


Description No %


Agree 114 17.02

Neutral 168 25.08

Disagree 94 14.03


TOTAL 670 100

TABLE 4.7 IMPACT ON CUSTOMER SERVICE

Description No %



Neutral 50 7.46

Negatively 40 5.97


TOTAL 670 100

TABLE 4.8 IMPACT OF MANAGEMENT SUPPORT ON CUSTOMER SERVICE

Integration Very

positively


negatively

Total

Strongly

agree

140

(122.24)

43

(73.34)

28

(17.41)

12

(13.97

7

(6.99)

234

Agree 60

(59.55)

21

(35.73)

13

(8.51)

7

(6.81)

2

(3.40)

114

Neutral 92

(87.76)

50

(52.66)

12

(12.53)

11

(10.03)

4

(5.02)

168

Disagree 53

(49.10)

27

(29.46)

6

(7.01)

6

(5.61)

3(2.82) 94

Strongly

disagree

34

(31.34)

17

(18.80)

3

(4.48)

4

(3.58)

2

(1.79)

60

TOTAL 350 210 50 40 20 670


DECISION

Again the computed Chi-square of 33.13 is in the rejection

area beyond the critical value of 26.296. Since X2

16, .05 = 33.13

is greater than X216, .05 = 26.296, we reject H0 and accept H1 and

conclude that management recognition and support for the new

information technology dramatically improves customer

service.

HYPOTHESIS IV

Question: Do you agree that cooperation between the operators

and the reengineering consultations will enhance workers

knowledge of the new information system


Description No %


Agree 256 38.21

Neutral 80 11.94

Disagree 110 16.42





TOTAL 670 100

TABLE 4.10 IMPACT OF INTEGRATION ON CUSTOMER

SERVICE

Description No %



Neutral 62 9.25

Negatively 140 20.90


TOTAL 670 100

TABLE 4.11 COOPERATION BETWEEN OPERATORS AND REENGINEERING CONSULTANTS AND ITS IMPACT ON WORKERS KNOWLEDGE OF THE NEW INFORMATION

SYSTEM INTEGRATION

Very

positively


negatively

Total

Strongly agree 38

(27.86)

30

(39.88)

16

(11.29)

30

(25.49)

8

(17.48)

122

Agree 76

(58.46)

82

(83.68)

24

(23.69)

40

(53.49)

34

(36.68)

256

Neutral 24

(18.27)

32

(26.15)

2

(7.40)

7

(16.72)

15

(11.46)

80

Disagree 28

(25.12)

34

(35.96)

8

(10.18)

30

(22.99)

10

(15.76)

110

Strongly

disagree

13

(23.29)

41

(33.34)

12

(9.44)

33

(21.33)

29

(14.62)

102

TOTAL 153 219 62 140 96 670


DECISION

The computed Chi-square of 69.44 is also in the

rejection area beyond the critical value of 26.296. Since

X216, .05 = 69.44 is greater than X

216, .05 = 26.296; we

reject H0 and accept H1.

We therefore conclude that cooperation

between the operators and the reengineering consultants

will enhance workers knowledge of the new information

system.

DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

Initiation of change project and integrating it with

human activities

From table 4.0 to 4.2, there is evidence that

integration of the new information system with human

activities leads to improved customer service 54.03% of

the respondents agreed to this. Again, the hypothesis

tested revealed that there is a significant positive

difference in customer service if the new information

system processes are integrated with human activities.

Existing theory is consistent with the importance of

the perceived need for change as a source of motivation

and condition for success. Planned change for need is

corporate- wide and stems from a vision of the

organization as a result of the change, defined mainly

and centrally by management. In emergent change, the

need is perceived by each employee as he or she

observes problems or opportunities for change in

everyday work. The underlying difference is that

planned change aims at having a commonly perceived

need among all stakeholders, whereas in emergent

change the need is individually perceived. Whereas a

vision or how reaching the vision affect the problems

currently at hand. However, a common vision prevents

sub-optimization, which may be a problem in the

emergent change implementation where all

organizational members initiate changes according to

their observations.

Rather than being guided by an abstract overall

vision or individual everyday problems, evolutionary

change implementation is guided by a strategic

challenge that can be evidently related to the

organization’s business performance. The challenge

drives change towards a certain performance level, but

not necessarily towards a specific design of the target

state.

J. Management structure & the role of organizational

culture

In testing this hypothesis (Tables 4.3 to 4.5), there is

evidence that management understanding of the role of

organizational culture enhances BPR implementation.

Whereas 72.69% of the respondents agreed to this, only

15.07% disagreed and 12.24% remained neutral.

Top management as a criterion for successful change

is as well recognized by both planned and emergent

implementation approaches. In planned change, top

management has overall responsibility for making the

change whereas in emergent change its role is rather to

create the condition for change to be made by all

employees. In the evolutionary approach,

implementation is managed in a co-ordinated but




decentralized manner. Co-ordination is achieved by

having global or central instances in the management

structure such as a steering group and program

management team. The responsibility of the local

implementation is decentralized throughout the

organization. Both the global and local instances of the

management structure have their important and specific

roles the former ensuring consistency and synergy and

the latter providing knowledge on everyday work and

the local context of the change.

K. Management support for the implementation process

From tables 4.6 to 4.8, there is strong evidence that

management recognition and support for the new

information technology improves customer service

delivery. 51.96% of the respondents attested to this,

only 22.98% disagreed and 25.08% remaining neutral.

The implementation process is neither linear as

according to planned nor continuous like in emergent

change. The process is not about executing a predefined

plan, which is completed as a separate step in the

beginning of the effort. Nor is it a continuously on

going and repeated cycle responding to observed needs

for change without rimy pre-planning.

L. Cooperation between users and reengineering

consultants (Change Advancement)

Findings from testing this hypothesis (Tables 4.9 to

4.11) corroborate the respondents’ views wherein

56.42% agreeing and supporting the hypothesis and

31.64% disagreeing while 11.94 remained neutral.

This means that the planned implementation

approach considers organizational change to begin with

a complete and holistic design of the solutions to be

implemented throughout the organization. Quite the

contrary, the emergent approach views change as an

accumulation of incremental more or less individual

changes, According to the evolutionary approach,

change is systemic in a way that it, can be built up

incrementally yet considering the interrelationship

between the various organizational elements and the

overall challenge. The systemic change advancement is

related to the order of both implementations in. different

organizational units as well as the solutions to be

implemented. Thus, the advancement is systemic in

terms of the coverage of the implementation as well as

the level of detail and completeness of the solutions.

IV. CONCLUSION

The answers to sub-questions 1) and 2) were

grounded on the various theories of organizational

change. The division of planned and emergent

approaches was proposed in the existing body of

knowledge. However, the concept of emergent change

was not fully established. The validity of the two

distinctive implementation approaches was confirmed in

this research by reflecting them with the main

theoretical disciplines contributing to organizational

change implementation. How the theories proposed to

implement change conformed relatively closely with

either planned or emergent approach. Further findings

related to the existing theories were the four elements of

organizational change implementation: initiation,

management structure, process of implementation and

change advancement.

These were the main aspects of the implementation

that the theories dealt with and so also differentiated the

planned and emergent approaches to change. Therefore,

the answers to sub-questions 1) and 2) consist of the

following dimensions:

1) the two alternative implementation approaches,

planned and emergent and,

2) initiation, management structure, process of

implementation and the change advancement as the

elements of implementation. The planned approach is

characterized by initiation based on a designed vision,

centralized management structure, linear and sequential

process and holistic change advancement. In contrast,

initiation based on an observed problem or opportunity,

local management structure, continuous process and

incremental change advancement feature the emergent

approach.

Finally, sub-questions 3) and 4) were answered using

the four elements of the implementation used as the

basis for the study. Data from this research provided no

evidence of an implementation approach that was either

planned or emergent thereby reflecting the evidence that

the existing implementation approaches formed the

grounding for a new implementation approach labeled

as evolutionary change implementation. This approach

was as well characterized based on the elaborated four

elements of implementation. A rational comparison

between the new and existing approaches showed how

the evolutionary change shared some characteristics of

both planned and emergent approaches and combined

their strengths to some level.

Thus, the evolutionary approach can be concluded as a

successful implementation approach, characterized by:

a) initiation based on a challenge

b) co-ordinated, but decentralized management

structure

c) dynamic implementation process and

d) system change advancement.

Finally, the main research question gets an answer

based on the presented findings related to the sub-

questions.

The novelty of this study is the evolutionary

approach for organizational change implementation.

Secondly, the scattered and manifold theory of




organizational change implementation is elaborated into

four constructs representing the essential elements of

implementation. The third theoretical contribution

involves the conceptualization of the two

implementation approaches, which are presented in the

existing theory but not fully established and linked to

the various theoretical disciplines contributing to change

implementation. The study summarizes the extant

understanding of change implementation across

different disciplines that have been addressing the issues

of implementation separately, yet providing very similar

models and approaches. Additionally, the study links

both the extant and the new approach with complexity

and activity theories.

The practical utility of this research consists of the

new implementation approach and the synthesis of the

existing theory. The basis for the change program

implementation study was the microcosm approach that

was further complemented with an overall program

viewpoint introduced by Davenport et al. (2001). This

research continues the work with a more theoretical

viewpoint and a deeper, more systematic and extensive

study. Based on previous research, change practitioners

are probably already familiar with the most important

factors critical for successful change.

V. RECOMMENDATIONS

For BPR to be widely applicable, it is necessary to

find ways of looking beyond the limitations of the

dominant paradigm and metaphor. With so much at

stake, both in the business and the reputations of the

protagonists, and the claimed and actual benefits to

organizations, the subject of BPR is one that is likely to

be with us for some time. Given the variance in thinking

as to whether culture is a material factor in success or

failure, and the difficulties highlighted in measuring

culture, then meaningful, definitive, and objective

research will no doubt be the province of major business

school and other academic institutes.

The review revealed that change management is

about partnering technology with a corporate culture

and business processes, and then using it as the vehicle

to manage and deliver the business information and

knowledge to the most fundamental driver of business

growth: the worker. Whilst technology is a required

foundation for managing knowledge assets and bringing

people together, especially those in geographically

dispersed organizations, at the same time, creating

incentives for change and having focused business goals

will help avoid many of the common pitfalls on BPR.

Those branches that are not practicing BPR face the

barriers of the need for more education and justification,

and cultural issues. Whilst most believe that BPR is

important in achieving certain organizational goals,

there still exists a hick of understanding of it, which in

turn affects the ability to be able to justify investing in

it. This means that most of the branches surveyed may

also need more management commitment to BPR and

perhaps they can get this once management also

becomes more educated. Until they are educated in

BPR, and until this education is communicated

throughout all levels of the organization, there exists an

organizational stalemate. To improve their scale scores,

the following areas of these organizations generally

needed attention employing dedicated staff, better

communication of business processes, non-technical

education and training, incentives, and technology and

processes for locating and inputting critical information.

Although information technology (IT) plays a central

role in reengineering, the Information System

organization in many companies is unable to play, This

ineffectiveness may be due to the historic inability of IS

to do “anything big quickly”, the “breeding out” of risk-

taking, the lack of advanced technology groups, the

Nigerian factor and dysfunctional facilities such as

telecommunications and electricity.

Again, since the Information Technology (IT) group

is not perceived as being part of the business process,

they are excluded from the reengineering team. Senior

management may be skeptical about the effectiveness of

IT as a whole due to the “lackluster” performance of

many information systems in the past decades.

Based on this record, it is not unreasonable to view

IT as a disabler, which is never used to challenge why

things are done the way they are done in Nigerian

companies, but instead justify the way they are done.

Systems in the service sector have been used to generate

more unneeded reports, speed up superfluous work

steps, generate unnecessary information, encourage

shoddy thinking and misdirect attention to spurious

details.

Therefore reengineering and information technology'

are irrevocably linked. It is common knowledge .that

Walmart, for example, would not have been able to

reengineer the processes used to procure and distribute

mass-market retail goods without IT. Again, Ford was

able to decrease its headcount in the procurement

department by 75% by using IT in conjunction with

BPR. Despite studies that indicate over half of all

reengineering efforts are initiated because of a

perceived information technology opportunity, the

actual technological solution in Nigeria is far less

important than educating employees on how to use IT as

both a strategic initiative and as a tool in the

reengineering process.

Based on the above findings, we argue that when

developing a reengineering strategy, the best is to ignore

information technology. Only after the strategy is

complete should innovative IT applications be

benchmarked, since innovative applications often stem

from a combination of breakthrough ideas and from

modifying several best practices.




REFERENCES

[1]. Argyris, C. (1992). Seeking truth and actionable knowledge: How the scientific method inhibits both. On organizational learning (pp.

286- 294). Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.

[2]. Burack, E. H. (1991), Changing the Corporate Culture - The Role of Human Resource Development, Long Range Planning, 24(1) pp

88-95

[3]. Chase R, International Survey on change management Drivers, Journal of management; The Benchmarking Exchange; Best

Practice Club, September 1997, [Online, accessed 9 Aug. 1999],

URL: http://www.managementbusiness.com/international.html.

[4]. Davenport, 1. H. (1998), Process Innovation - Reengineering

Work through Information Technology, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard Business School Press

[5]. Dove R, Change management, response ability, and the agile

enterprise, Journal of management, Vol. 3, No. 1, 1999: 18. [6]. Ernst and Young (1996). Creating the Value Network; New York

[7]. Hammer, M. & Champy, J. (1993) Reengineering the

Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution, New York: Harper Business.

[8]. Hedin M, What is change management? IDC Bulletin No. 14910,

International Data Corporation, December 1997, pp. 1-10. [9]. Hunter R, Frick V, Rosser B, Applying change management: key

issues for 1998, Key Issues Research Note, Gartner Group,

January 1998. [10]. Jones M, Arnett K, Linkages between the CEO and the IS

environment: An empirical assessment, Information Resources

Management Journal, Vol. 5, No. 4, 1994, pp. 33-38. [11]. Lawrence, P. R. & Lorsch, J. W. (1967), Organization and

Environment, Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP

[12]. Murray P, Myers A, The Facts About Knowledge, Cranfield School of Management, [Online, accessed 9 Aug. 1999], URL:

http://www.info-strategy.com/knowsur1.

[13]. Quinn, R.E. & McGratth, M.R. (19985). The Transformation of Organizational Cultures: A Competing Values Perspective. In : P. J.

Frost et al (eds), Organizational Culture. Newburk Park,

California: Sage, pp315 – 334. [14]. Shevlin R, Deutsch W, Change management’s half-life, The

Forrester Brief, Microsoft Library, October 1998.

[15]. Sveiby K, The New Organizational Wealth: Managing and Measuring Knowledge Based Assets, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, CA,

1997

[16]. Salminen K (2006). Factors Influencing Successful Change Management in IT Outsourcing from Transferred Personnel Point of

View. http://urn.fi/urn:nbn:fi:uta-1-15807

[17]. Galliers R, Merali Y, Spearing L, Coping with information technology? How British executives perceive the key

information systems, Journal of Information Technology, Vol. 9, No.

3, 1994, pp. 223-238.

[18]. Amburgey, T.L., Kelly, D., and Barnett, W.P. (1993). Resetting

the clock: The dynamics of organizational change and failure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 51-73

[19]. Imaga, E.U.L (2000) Elements of management and culture in

organizational behavior. Rhyce publishers, Enugu Nigeria. [20]. Beer, M., Eisenstat, R A., & Spector, B. (1997), Why Change

Programs Don’t Produce Change, In: Maybe, C. & Mayon-White, B.

(eds.), Managing Change (2nd ed), London: Paul Chapman, pp 99-107 [21]. Johansson, H. J., McHugh, P., Pendlebury, A. J. & Wheeler III,

W. A. (1993), Business Process Reengineering: Breakpoint

Strategies for Market Dominance, Chichester, England: Wiley

[22]. Aduba, N.C.O. (1997) Technology Driven Banking Services, a

paper presented at a workshop in Union Bank of Nigeria Plc Port Harcourt, Rivers State.

[23]. Beckard, R. & Harris, R. T. (1987), Organizational Transitions

(2 ed), Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley

[24]. Benjamin, G. & Mabey, C. (1993), Facilitating Radical Change,

In: Maybe, C. & Mayon- White, B. (eds.), Managing Change (2nd ed), London: Paul Chapman, pp 181-186

[25]. Argyris C, Harvard business review on knowledge management:

Teaching smart people how to learn, Harvard Business School Press, USA, 1998.

[26]. Kling, R. and Allen, J.P. (1996). Can computer science solve

organizational problems? In R. Kling (Ed), Computerization and controversy: Value conflicts and social choices (2nd ed.), (pp. 261-

276). New York: Academic Press.

[27]. Henley (1991), Managing People - Creating Successful Organizations, Henley-onThames, England: Henley Distance

Learning Ltd.

[28]. Brown, Shona L. & Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. (1998). Competing on the Edge: Strategy as Structured Chaos, Havard Business

School Press, Boston.

[29]. Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology. A once and future

discipline. The Belknap Press of Harward University Press;

Cambridge.

[30]. Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, and R-L. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on

activity theory, (pp. 19-38). Cambridge, U.K.:

Cambridge University Press. [31]. Leavitt, H.J., (1995), ‘Applying Organizational Changes in

Industry’, In: March, J. G., (ed.), Handbook of Organizations, Rand

McNally, Chicago [32]. Kono, T. (1990), “Corporate Culture and Long Range Planning”,

Long Range Planning, 23(4) pp 9-19 [33]. Moad, J. (1993), Does reengineering really work?, Datamation,

39(15) August 1, 1993 pp 22-28.

[34]. Rogers Y, Ellis J, Distributed cognition: An alternative framework, for analyzing and explaining collaborative working,

Journal of Information Technology, Vol. 9, No. 2, 1994, pp. 119-128.

[35]. Vidgen, R., Rose, J., Wood, B., Wood-Harper, T. (1994)

“Business Process Reengineering: the Need for a Methodology

to Revision the Organization”, In: TC8AUS IFIP Information Systems

International Working Conference - Conference Pre-prints, Queensland, Australia: Queensland Branch of the Australian

Computer Society

http://www.nvo.comlrunninglightskiprsurveyinstructions 1 [36]. Pervan G, How chief executive officers in large organizations

view the management of their information systems, Journal of

Information Technology, Vol. 13, No. 2,1998, pp. 95- 109. [37]. Davenport T, DeLong D, Beers M, Successful change

management projects, Sloan Management Review, Winter 1998, pp.

43-57. [38]. Orlikowski, W.J. (1997) The Duality of Technology: Rethinking

the Concept of Technology in Organizations, Organization Science, 3,

398-427. [39]. Goodstein, L. D. & Burke, W. W. (1993), Creating Successful

organizational Change In: Maybe, C. & Mayon-White, B. (eds.),

Managing Change (2 ed.), London: Paul Chapman, pp 164-172 [40]. Nadler, D. A. (1993), Concepts for the Management of

Organizational Change, In: Maybe, C. & Mayon-White, B. (eds.),

Managing Change (2nd Ed), London: Paul Chapman. [41]. Nonaka, Ikujiro and Takeuchi, Hirotaka (1995), “The

knowledge-creating company. How Japanese Companies Create the

Dynamics of innovation”, Oxford University Press, Inc., New York [42]. Andrews, D. A. & Stalick, S. K. (1994), Business

Reengineering: The Survival Guide, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-

Hall [43]. Dunphy, D. and Stace, D (2007), Transformational and coercive

strategies for planned Organizational change: Beyond the O.D. Model.

Organization studies, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 317-334. [44]. Gergen, K. 1. (1992): Organizational Theory in the Postmodern

Era In: Reed, M. & Hughes, M. (eds.), Rethinking Organization,

London: Sage, pp 207-226 Institute of Technology, Cambridge.

[45]. Abdullahi, S.A (1985) Management and culture and the Nigerian

enterprise: An exercise in relevancy in Pita Ejiofor (ed)

http://www.managementbusiness.com/international.html.

http://www.info-/

http://urn.fi/urn:nbn:fi:uta-1-15807

http://www.nvo.comlrunninglightskiprsurveyinstructions/




Development of management education in Nigeria, Ikeja, center

for management education. [46]. Klein, Katherine J. and Sorra, Joann Speer (1996) “The

challenge of innovation, implementation”, Academy of Management

Review, Vol. 2 1, No. 4, pp. 1055 - 1080. [47]. Key S, Analyzing managerial discretion: An assessment tool to

predict individual policy decisions, The International Journal of

Organizational Analysis, Vol. 7, No. 1, 1994, pp. 20-34 [48]. Hendry, Chris (1996) Understanding and creating whole

organizational change through learning theory, human Relations, Vol.

49, No. 5, pp. 621 -641. [49]. Mintzberg, H. and Westley, F. (1992) Cycles of organizational

change, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 13, pp. 39-59.

[50]. Glaser, B.G. (1993). Basics of grounded theory analysis. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

[51]. Holtshouse D, Change research issues, California Management

Review, Vol. 40, No. 3, 1998, pp. 277- 280.

[52]. Alvesson, M. (1993), Cultural Perspectives on Organizations,

Cambridge, England: Cambridge UP

[53]. Zuboff, S. (1988) In the Age of the Smart Machine: The Future of Work and Power, Basic Books, Inc.

[54]. Eldredge, N and Gould, S. (1972) Punctuated Equilibria: An

alternative to phyletic Gradualism in TJ. Schopf (ed.): Models in palebiology, Freeman, Cooper & Co., San Fransisco

[55]. Pettigrew, A. & Whipp, R: (1993), “Understanding the

Environment” In: Maybe, C. & Mayon-White, B. (eds.), Managing Change (2 ed.), London: Paul Chapman, pp 5-19.

available at managing human resources …ijrmst.org/download/vol4no1/3.pdf · keywords-- flexcube,...

Documents