ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
In the spectrum of organizational change, which is the most radical type of change: automation, rationalization of procedures, business re engineering, or paradigm shifts?
In a business world today, the most frequent question would be, “What is the best thing to do to make an organization progress?” Since our world is experiencing a very fast-changing environment, I guess we could never adopt those changes easily. It is also because of the hundred of opportunities and pitfalls passing us every moment. We will also be confused of the thousands of techniques, solutions and methods that claim to help business improve productivity, quality and customer satisfaction.
In these buzzwords, a company President or business owner has so many choices that could be called as Total Quality Management, Customer Satisfaction or Re-engineering. We could compare them to a new bargain hunter into a massive grocery store, who are hungry but still could not choose because of the different varieties of products with so many brands, sizes that usually lead to confusion on what to buy.
In response to this confusion, many do nothing, often afraid of making the wrong choices. Others change the techniques they use every few months, using the “program du’jeur” method of organizational change, otherwise known as MBS (Management by Best Seller). Neither of these replies successfully helps the organization to stay in the industry longer. Changing nothing will produce nothing. Implementing a different buzzword (Total Quality, Just in Time, Re-engineering, etc.) every few months often creates a “whipsaw” effect that causes mass confusion among your employees.
Today's business environment produces change in the workplace more suddenly and frequently than ever before. Mergers, acquisitions, new technology, restructuring and downsizing are all factors that contribute to a growing climate of uncertainty. Jobs, health, even marriages can be placed at risk, jeopardizing productivity and profitability.
People have deep attachments to their organization, work group, and way of working. The ability to adapt to changing work conditions is key for individual and organizational survival. Change will be ever present and learning to manage and lead change includes not only understanding human factors but also skill to manage and lead change effectively.
These buzzwords are often a hammer in search of a nail, techniques applied with no clear focus as to the why, expected results or return on investment.
According to an article that I read, a senior management of an organization proclaimed in a memo that Total Quality should be a way of life. One senior vice president declared that he wanted 25% of his organization using Total Quality tools within a year. This caused tremendous excitement in the organization, However, the follow-through was delayed, occasionally inappropriate and sometimes not there. Many employees became discouraged with the process and considered it just another management fad. With the next business downturn, virtually all training had stopped and little enthusiasm was left. Other organizations clearly focus on technical problems and on improving what they had. They are initially successful, but become victims of their own success. I call this an improved, planned incremental approach. Their initial quality improvement teams may be so successful they rapidly create more teams, without the qualitative organization-wide changes (re-engineering) necessary to sustain a permanent effort.
Change is hard on people and organizations. But it's one of those necessary evils that keep companies in the lead or helps destroy them.
The problem with the people involve in the transformation initiative in the resistance to change. The people easily react on these and take this kind of announcement as a hitch. They immediately complain to one another that the changes will going to devastate all the operations they have in the organization.
Workplaces are faced with endless change (Herscovitch and Meyer, 2002), and effective management of that change is an important competency currently required by an organization (Paton and McCalman, 2000). The growing frequency and complexity of workplace change requires employees to adapt to change without disruption; however,
resistance to change is the more common reaction (Caldwell et al., 2004). As managers make decisions for coping with change, they must consider not only how firm performance will be affected but also how employees will be affected.
As Herscovitch and Meyer (2002, p. 474) stated:
Given the accelerated rate and complexity of changes in the workplace, it is not surprising that there is a large and growing literature on the causes, consequences, and strategies of organizational change. What is surprising, however, is the paucity of research on employee reactions to change.
There is a growing interest in understanding how change is experienced by individual employees (Judge et al., 1999) and researchers are beginning to investigate the role of employee commitment in organizational change situations (Herscovitch and Meyer, 2002; Noble and Mokwa, 1999). To attain commitment, we believe that top management must strive to understand its critical role in the successful implementation of strategic initiatives.
The phenomenon is so entrenched it can only be chalked up to human nature. But while managing change can sometimes feel like moving a mountain, it can also be incredibly rewarding, particularly when you start seeing results.
In implementing changes, there are four practices that I guess should be accepted according to the article I have read.
You should have an apparent purpose or goal to a change initiative. Change should be a relatively orderly process, but for that to occur, people have to understand why change is necessary and how changes will affect them. This is easier, of course, when the problems are obvious—earnings are collapsing or a competitor has dropped prices 20 percent. Because we cannot immediately see the changes that had been made by the senior officers. Aggressive pressure seems to be rising, but you do not know for sure, and still, you have to take action. With that business rationale for changes, in those cases, unyielding communication should be reinforced with lots of data, is the best ammunition you have. It will be more challenging for them to communicate especially if the change takes place on a larger company. The larger your company, the more challenging it will be to communicate the need for change. After all, if the company has been through enough change programs, employees will assume you will go away if they just wait long enough. In a business scenario, it is more suggested to stick to your guns and stand strong to your goals.
Employ and uphold only right adherent and get-on-with-it type's people. We all know that the very first dilemma that an organization could have in a business transformation is the resistance of the employee to change. All and sundry in business claims to like change. To say or else would be career suicide. Based on researched and estimation, only or less than 10 percent of the population on a company is real in adopting the change. And only 70 to 80 percent of them agreed that transformation is needed they will say, “OK already, get on with it.” The rest are resisters. To see the effect to make change happen, organizations must enthusiastically employ and uphold only real adherent and people who were very much willing to explore and transform to a more new organization. But with everyone claiming to like change, how can you tell who is for real? These people have certain fearlessness about the unknown. If they fail, they know they can pick themselves up, dust themselves off and move on. They're thick-skinned about risk, which allows them to make bold decisions without a lot of data.
Rummage out and eliminate the people who always resist changing, even if their performance is satisfactory because among the four practices, this would be the hardest practice to be employed. Its tough to let anyone go, but it's particularly difficult to fire people who are not actually screwing up and may in fact be doing quite well. However in any organization, there are still who do not want to accept the reality of change even how harsh the scenario would be. They are so invested—emotionally, intellectually, or politically—in the status quo that they cannot see a way to improve anything. These people usually have to go. It may sound cruel on their part but still you are just thinking not for yourself but for the sake of the whole organization you are with. So it is needed that you should avoid any resisters in an organization. They foster an underground resistance and lower the morale of the people who support change. They're wasting their own time: They're working at a company where they don't agree with or share in the vision, and they should be encouraged to find one where they do.
Anticipate the things that may happen. Most organizations capitalize on obvious opportunities. When a competitor fails, they move in on their customers. When a new technology emerges, they invest in it and create product line extensions. Nevertheless, the valid truth that should always be considered is the unpredictable events that may happen. The opportunities should be assess on how they can affect the organization and how to make the most of them. Fostering this capability takes a certain determination, but the rewards can be huge. Bankruptcies are another type of calamity that reveals all kinds of opportunities. Of course, they're tragic to the employees. Jobs are lost, and pensions disappear into thin air. But jobs and futures can also be created from the cinders. With all the noise out there about change, it's easy to get overwhelmed and confused. But these are the only four practices that matter. That's it. There's nothing to be afraid of.
So let me define first what is organizational change really means based on the researched I have gathered.
The typical concept of organizational change is in regard to organization-wide change, as opposed to smaller changes such as adding a new person, modifying a program, etc. Examples of organization-wide change might include a change in mission, restructuring operations, new technologies, mergers, major collaborations, "rightsizing", new programs such as Total Quality Management, re-engineering, etc. Some experts refer to organizational transformation. Often this term designates a fundamental and radical reorientation in the way the organization operates. Organizational change is any action or set of actions resulting in a shift in direction or process that affects the way an organization works. Change can be deliberate and planned by leaders within the organization change can originate outside the organization and be beyond its control. Change may affect the strategies an organization uses to carry out its mission, the processes for implementing those strategies, the tasks and functions performed by the people in the organization, and the relationships between those people. Naturally, some changes are relatively small, while others are sweeping in scope, amounting to an organizational transformation. Change is a fact of organizational life, just as it is in human life. An organization that does not change cannot survive long much less thrive in an unpredictable world. Several factors may make organizational change necessary, including new competition in the marketplace or new demands by customers.
These types of external forces may create expectations of improved efficiency, better service, or innovative products. When organizational change is well planned and implemented, it helps assure the organizations continued survival. It can produce many tangible benefits, including improved competitiveness, better financial performance, and higher levels of customer and employee satisfaction. These benefits may take some time to achieve; however, and the transition period that accompanies major organizational change usually is a time of upheaval and uncertainty. Not every individual in the organization will benefit personally from change; some will be casualties of change, especially if jobs are cut or realigned. But change should make the organization as a whole stronger and better equipped for the future. It usually occurs when a company makes a transition from its current state to some desired future state. Managing organizational change is the process of planning and implementing change in organizations in such a way as to minimize employee resistance and cost to the organization, while also maximizing the effectiveness of the change effort.
Today’s business environment requires companies to undergo changes almost constantly if they are to remain competitive. Factors such as globalization of markets and rapidly evolving technology force businesses to respond in order to survive. Organizational change management includes processes and tools for managing the people side of the change at an organizational level. These tools include a structured approach that can be used to effectively transition groups or organizations through change. When combined with an understanding of individual change management, these tools provide a framework for managing the people side of change. Organizational change management processes include techniques for creating a change management strategy (readiness assessments), engaging senior managers as change leaders (sponsorship), building awareness of the need for change (communications), developing skills and knowledge to support the change (education and training), helping employees move through the transition (coaching by managers and supervisors), and methods to sustain the change (measurement systems, rewards and reinforcement). Change should not be done for the sake of change -- it's a strategy to accomplish some overall goal. Usually organizational change is provoked by some major outside driving force, e.g., substantial cuts in funding, address major new markets/clients, need for dramatic increases in productivity/services, etc. Typically, organizations must undertake organization-wide change to evolve to a different level in their life cycle, e.g., going from a highly reactive, entrepreneurial organization to more stable and planned development. Transition to a new chief executive can provoke organization-wide change when his or her new and unique personality pervades the entire organization.
Range of Organizational Change
The spectrum of organizational change is composed of four parts, arranged from lowest to highest in terms of both risks and rewards: automation, rationalization of procedures, business re-engineering, and paradigm shift. Meanwhile, the term radical is synonymous with deep-seated, essential, major, thorough, sweeping, and drastic. So when we say radical organizational change, we are referring to a type of organizational change that will bring about largely significant and drastic changes.
1. AUTOMATION: Using technology to perform current tasks more efficiently & effectively.
Automation or industrial automation or numerical control is the use of control systems such as computers to control industrial machinery and processes, reducing the need for human intervention. In the scope of industrialization, automation is a step beyond mechanization. Whereas mechanization provided human operators with machinery to assist them with the physical requirements of work, automation greatly reduces the need for human sensory and mental requirements as well. Processes and systems can also be automated. Mechanizing procedures to speed up the performance of existing tasks. It is the process of having a machine or machines accomplish tasks hitherto performed wholly or partly by humans. As used here, a machine refers to any inanimate electromechanical device such as a robot or computer. As a technology, automation can be applied to almost any human endeavor, from manufacturing to clerical and administrative tasks. An example of automation is the heating and air-conditioning system in the modern household. After initial programming by the occupant, these systems keep the house at a constant desired temperature regardless of the conditions outside.
2. RATIONALIZATION OF PROCEDURES: Streamline Standard Operating Procedures; eliminate bottlenecks.
It is the process of constructing a logical justification for a belief, decision, action or lack thereof that was originally arrived at through a different mental process. It is a defense mechanism in which unacceptable behaviors or feelings are explained in a rational or logical manner; this avoids the true explanation of the behavior or feeling in question.
It is the application of efficiency or effectiveness measures to an organization. Rationalization can occur at the onset of a downturn in an organization's performance or results. It usually takes the form of cutbacks intended to bring the organization back to profitability and may involve layoffs, plant closures, and cutbacks in supplies and resources. It often involves changes in organization structure, particularly in the form of downsizing. The term is also used in a cynical way as a euphemism for mass layoffs.
3. BUSINESS RE-ENGINEERING: Radical redesign of processes to improve cost, quality, service; maximize benefits of technology. Business Re engineering is the analysis and redesign of work flow within and between enterprises. BPR reached its heyday in the early 1990's when Michael Hammer and James Champy published their best-selling book, "Re engineering the Corporation". The authors promoted the idea that sometimes radical redesign and reorganization of an enterprise (wiping the slate clean) was necessary to lower costs and increase quality of service and that information technology was the key enabler for that radical change. Hammer and Champy felt that the design of workflow in most large corporations was based on assumptions about technology, people, and organizational goals that were no longer valid. It is the main way in which organizations become more efficient and modernize. Business process re engineering transforms an organization in ways that directly affect performance.
They suggested seven principles of re engineering to streamline the work process and thereby achieve significant levels of improvement in quality, time management, and cost:
1. Organize around outcomes, not tasks.
2. Identify all the processes in an organization and prioritize them in order of redesign urgency.
3. Integrate information processing work into the real work that produces the information.
4. Treat geographically dispersed resources as though they were centralized.
5. Link parallel activities in the workflow instead of just integrating their results.
6. Put the decision point where the work is performed, and build control into the process.
7. Capture information once and at the source.
4. PARADIGM SHIFT: Radical reconceptualization of the nature of the business and the nature of the organization. A Paradigm Shift Involves: Rethinking the Nature of the Business, Overhaul of the Organization; A Complete Reconception of How The System Should Function.
For millions of years we have been evolving and will continue to do so. Change is difficult. Human Beings resist change; however, the process has been set in motion long ago and we will continue to co-create our own experience. It all begins in the mind of the person. What we perceive, whether normal or metanormal, conscious or unconscious, is subject to the limitations and distortions produced by our inherited and socially conditional nature. However, we are not restricted by this for we can change. We are moving at an accelerated rate of speed and our state of consciousness is transforming and transcending. Many are awakening as our conscious awareness expands.
Among of the range of the organizational change that has been mentioned, I guess the most radical type of change would be the paradigm shifts. It is because Paradigm shift is a change from one way of thinking to another. It's a revolution, a transformation, a sort of metamorphosis. It just does not happen, but rather it is driven by agents of change. Paradigm shift also involves rethinking the whole nature of the business, a complete re-conception of how the system should function. So, it literally offers a new perception to the organization adopting such change. It allows the organization to rebuild their business processes from top to bottom. It conveys an idea to the organization way of thinking to replace the old processes progression.
References:
http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/feap/newsletters/managing-org.-change.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Change_management
http://www.brint.org/KMEbusiness.pdf
In the spectrum of organizational change, which is the most radical type of change: automation, rationalization of procedures, business re engineering, or paradigm shifts?
In a business world today, the most frequent question would be, “What is the best thing to do to make an organization progress?” Since our world is experiencing a very fast-changing environment, I guess we could never adopt those changes easily. It is also because of the hundred of opportunities and pitfalls passing us every moment. We will also be confused of the thousands of techniques, solutions and methods that claim to help business improve productivity, quality and customer satisfaction.
In these buzzwords, a company President or business owner has so many choices that could be called as Total Quality Management, Customer Satisfaction or Re-engineering. We could compare them to a new bargain hunter into a massive grocery store, who are hungry but still could not choose because of the different varieties of products with so many brands, sizes that usually lead to confusion on what to buy.
In response to this confusion, many do nothing, often afraid of making the wrong choices. Others change the techniques they use every few months, using the “program du’jeur” method of organizational change, otherwise known as MBS (Management by Best Seller). Neither of these replies successfully helps the organization to stay in the industry longer. Changing nothing will produce nothing. Implementing a different buzzword (Total Quality, Just in Time, Re-engineering, etc.) every few months often creates a “whipsaw” effect that causes mass confusion among your employees.
Today's business environment produces change in the workplace more suddenly and frequently than ever before. Mergers, acquisitions, new technology, restructuring and downsizing are all factors that contribute to a growing climate of uncertainty. Jobs, health, even marriages can be placed at risk, jeopardizing productivity and profitability.
People have deep attachments to their organization, work group, and way of working. The ability to adapt to changing work conditions is key for individual and organizational survival. Change will be ever present and learning to manage and lead change includes not only understanding human factors but also skill to manage and lead change effectively.
These buzzwords are often a hammer in search of a nail, techniques applied with no clear focus as to the why, expected results or return on investment.
According to an article that I read, a senior management of an organization proclaimed in a memo that Total Quality should be a way of life. One senior vice president declared that he wanted 25% of his organization using Total Quality tools within a year. This caused tremendous excitement in the organization, However, the follow-through was delayed, occasionally inappropriate and sometimes not there. Many employees became discouraged with the process and considered it just another management fad. With the next business downturn, virtually all training had stopped and little enthusiasm was left. Other organizations clearly focus on technical problems and on improving what they had. They are initially successful, but become victims of their own success. I call this an improved, planned incremental approach. Their initial quality improvement teams may be so successful they rapidly create more teams, without the qualitative organization-wide changes (re-engineering) necessary to sustain a permanent effort.
Change is hard on people and organizations. But it's one of those necessary evils that keep companies in the lead or helps destroy them.
The problem with the people involve in the transformation initiative in the resistance to change. The people easily react on these and take this kind of announcement as a hitch. They immediately complain to one another that the changes will going to devastate all the operations they have in the organization.
Workplaces are faced with endless change (Herscovitch and Meyer, 2002), and effective management of that change is an important competency currently required by an organization (Paton and McCalman, 2000). The growing frequency and complexity of workplace change requires employees to adapt to change without disruption; however,
resistance to change is the more common reaction (Caldwell et al., 2004). As managers make decisions for coping with change, they must consider not only how firm performance will be affected but also how employees will be affected.
As Herscovitch and Meyer (2002, p. 474) stated:
Given the accelerated rate and complexity of changes in the workplace, it is not surprising that there is a large and growing literature on the causes, consequences, and strategies of organizational change. What is surprising, however, is the paucity of research on employee reactions to change.
There is a growing interest in understanding how change is experienced by individual employees (Judge et al., 1999) and researchers are beginning to investigate the role of employee commitment in organizational change situations (Herscovitch and Meyer, 2002; Noble and Mokwa, 1999). To attain commitment, we believe that top management must strive to understand its critical role in the successful implementation of strategic initiatives.
The phenomenon is so entrenched it can only be chalked up to human nature. But while managing change can sometimes feel like moving a mountain, it can also be incredibly rewarding, particularly when you start seeing results.
In implementing changes, there are four practices that I guess should be accepted according to the article I have read.
You should have an apparent purpose or goal to a change initiative. Change should be a relatively orderly process, but for that to occur, people have to understand why change is necessary and how changes will affect them. This is easier, of course, when the problems are obvious—earnings are collapsing or a competitor has dropped prices 20 percent. Because we cannot immediately see the changes that had been made by the senior officers. Aggressive pressure seems to be rising, but you do not know for sure, and still, you have to take action. With that business rationale for changes, in those cases, unyielding communication should be reinforced with lots of data, is the best ammunition you have. It will be more challenging for them to communicate especially if the change takes place on a larger company. The larger your company, the more challenging it will be to communicate the need for change. After all, if the company has been through enough change programs, employees will assume you will go away if they just wait long enough. In a business scenario, it is more suggested to stick to your guns and stand strong to your goals.
Employ and uphold only right adherent and get-on-with-it type's people. We all know that the very first dilemma that an organization could have in a business transformation is the resistance of the employee to change. All and sundry in business claims to like change. To say or else would be career suicide. Based on researched and estimation, only or less than 10 percent of the population on a company is real in adopting the change. And only 70 to 80 percent of them agreed that transformation is needed they will say, “OK already, get on with it.” The rest are resisters. To see the effect to make change happen, organizations must enthusiastically employ and uphold only real adherent and people who were very much willing to explore and transform to a more new organization. But with everyone claiming to like change, how can you tell who is for real? These people have certain fearlessness about the unknown. If they fail, they know they can pick themselves up, dust themselves off and move on. They're thick-skinned about risk, which allows them to make bold decisions without a lot of data.
Rummage out and eliminate the people who always resist changing, even if their performance is satisfactory because among the four practices, this would be the hardest practice to be employed. Its tough to let anyone go, but it's particularly difficult to fire people who are not actually screwing up and may in fact be doing quite well. However in any organization, there are still who do not want to accept the reality of change even how harsh the scenario would be. They are so invested—emotionally, intellectually, or politically—in the status quo that they cannot see a way to improve anything. These people usually have to go. It may sound cruel on their part but still you are just thinking not for yourself but for the sake of the whole organization you are with. So it is needed that you should avoid any resisters in an organization. They foster an underground resistance and lower the morale of the people who support change. They're wasting their own time: They're working at a company where they don't agree with or share in the vision, and they should be encouraged to find one where they do.
Anticipate the things that may happen. Most organizations capitalize on obvious opportunities. When a competitor fails, they move in on their customers. When a new technology emerges, they invest in it and create product line extensions. Nevertheless, the valid truth that should always be considered is the unpredictable events that may happen. The opportunities should be assess on how they can affect the organization and how to make the most of them. Fostering this capability takes a certain determination, but the rewards can be huge. Bankruptcies are another type of calamity that reveals all kinds of opportunities. Of course, they're tragic to the employees. Jobs are lost, and pensions disappear into thin air. But jobs and futures can also be created from the cinders. With all the noise out there about change, it's easy to get overwhelmed and confused. But these are the only four practices that matter. That's it. There's nothing to be afraid of.
So let me define first what is organizational change really means based on the researched I have gathered.
The typical concept of organizational change is in regard to organization-wide change, as opposed to smaller changes such as adding a new person, modifying a program, etc. Examples of organization-wide change might include a change in mission, restructuring operations, new technologies, mergers, major collaborations, "rightsizing", new programs such as Total Quality Management, re-engineering, etc. Some experts refer to organizational transformation. Often this term designates a fundamental and radical reorientation in the way the organization operates. Organizational change is any action or set of actions resulting in a shift in direction or process that affects the way an organization works. Change can be deliberate and planned by leaders within the organization change can originate outside the organization and be beyond its control. Change may affect the strategies an organization uses to carry out its mission, the processes for implementing those strategies, the tasks and functions performed by the people in the organization, and the relationships between those people. Naturally, some changes are relatively small, while others are sweeping in scope, amounting to an organizational transformation. Change is a fact of organizational life, just as it is in human life. An organization that does not change cannot survive long much less thrive in an unpredictable world. Several factors may make organizational change necessary, including new competition in the marketplace or new demands by customers.
These types of external forces may create expectations of improved efficiency, better service, or innovative products. When organizational change is well planned and implemented, it helps assure the organizations continued survival. It can produce many tangible benefits, including improved competitiveness, better financial performance, and higher levels of customer and employee satisfaction. These benefits may take some time to achieve; however, and the transition period that accompanies major organizational change usually is a time of upheaval and uncertainty. Not every individual in the organization will benefit personally from change; some will be casualties of change, especially if jobs are cut or realigned. But change should make the organization as a whole stronger and better equipped for the future. It usually occurs when a company makes a transition from its current state to some desired future state. Managing organizational change is the process of planning and implementing change in organizations in such a way as to minimize employee resistance and cost to the organization, while also maximizing the effectiveness of the change effort.
Today’s business environment requires companies to undergo changes almost constantly if they are to remain competitive. Factors such as globalization of markets and rapidly evolving technology force businesses to respond in order to survive. Organizational change management includes processes and tools for managing the people side of the change at an organizational level. These tools include a structured approach that can be used to effectively transition groups or organizations through change. When combined with an understanding of individual change management, these tools provide a framework for managing the people side of change. Organizational change management processes include techniques for creating a change management strategy (readiness assessments), engaging senior managers as change leaders (sponsorship), building awareness of the need for change (communications), developing skills and knowledge to support the change (education and training), helping employees move through the transition (coaching by managers and supervisors), and methods to sustain the change (measurement systems, rewards and reinforcement). Change should not be done for the sake of change -- it's a strategy to accomplish some overall goal. Usually organizational change is provoked by some major outside driving force, e.g., substantial cuts in funding, address major new markets/clients, need for dramatic increases in productivity/services, etc. Typically, organizations must undertake organization-wide change to evolve to a different level in their life cycle, e.g., going from a highly reactive, entrepreneurial organization to more stable and planned development. Transition to a new chief executive can provoke organization-wide change when his or her new and unique personality pervades the entire organization.
Range of Organizational Change
The spectrum of organizational change is composed of four parts, arranged from lowest to highest in terms of both risks and rewards: automation, rationalization of procedures, business re-engineering, and paradigm shift. Meanwhile, the term radical is synonymous with deep-seated, essential, major, thorough, sweeping, and drastic. So when we say radical organizational change, we are referring to a type of organizational change that will bring about largely significant and drastic changes.
1. AUTOMATION: Using technology to perform current tasks more efficiently & effectively.
Automation or industrial automation or numerical control is the use of control systems such as computers to control industrial machinery and processes, reducing the need for human intervention. In the scope of industrialization, automation is a step beyond mechanization. Whereas mechanization provided human operators with machinery to assist them with the physical requirements of work, automation greatly reduces the need for human sensory and mental requirements as well. Processes and systems can also be automated. Mechanizing procedures to speed up the performance of existing tasks. It is the process of having a machine or machines accomplish tasks hitherto performed wholly or partly by humans. As used here, a machine refers to any inanimate electromechanical device such as a robot or computer. As a technology, automation can be applied to almost any human endeavor, from manufacturing to clerical and administrative tasks. An example of automation is the heating and air-conditioning system in the modern household. After initial programming by the occupant, these systems keep the house at a constant desired temperature regardless of the conditions outside.
2. RATIONALIZATION OF PROCEDURES: Streamline Standard Operating Procedures; eliminate bottlenecks.
It is the process of constructing a logical justification for a belief, decision, action or lack thereof that was originally arrived at through a different mental process. It is a defense mechanism in which unacceptable behaviors or feelings are explained in a rational or logical manner; this avoids the true explanation of the behavior or feeling in question.
It is the application of efficiency or effectiveness measures to an organization. Rationalization can occur at the onset of a downturn in an organization's performance or results. It usually takes the form of cutbacks intended to bring the organization back to profitability and may involve layoffs, plant closures, and cutbacks in supplies and resources. It often involves changes in organization structure, particularly in the form of downsizing. The term is also used in a cynical way as a euphemism for mass layoffs.
3. BUSINESS RE-ENGINEERING: Radical redesign of processes to improve cost, quality, service; maximize benefits of technology. Business Re engineering is the analysis and redesign of work flow within and between enterprises. BPR reached its heyday in the early 1990's when Michael Hammer and James Champy published their best-selling book, "Re engineering the Corporation". The authors promoted the idea that sometimes radical redesign and reorganization of an enterprise (wiping the slate clean) was necessary to lower costs and increase quality of service and that information technology was the key enabler for that radical change. Hammer and Champy felt that the design of workflow in most large corporations was based on assumptions about technology, people, and organizational goals that were no longer valid. It is the main way in which organizations become more efficient and modernize. Business process re engineering transforms an organization in ways that directly affect performance.
They suggested seven principles of re engineering to streamline the work process and thereby achieve significant levels of improvement in quality, time management, and cost:
1. Organize around outcomes, not tasks.
2. Identify all the processes in an organization and prioritize them in order of redesign urgency.
3. Integrate information processing work into the real work that produces the information.
4. Treat geographically dispersed resources as though they were centralized.
5. Link parallel activities in the workflow instead of just integrating their results.
6. Put the decision point where the work is performed, and build control into the process.
7. Capture information once and at the source.
4. PARADIGM SHIFT: Radical reconceptualization of the nature of the business and the nature of the organization. A Paradigm Shift Involves: Rethinking the Nature of the Business, Overhaul of the Organization; A Complete Reconception of How The System Should Function.
For millions of years we have been evolving and will continue to do so. Change is difficult. Human Beings resist change; however, the process has been set in motion long ago and we will continue to co-create our own experience. It all begins in the mind of the person. What we perceive, whether normal or metanormal, conscious or unconscious, is subject to the limitations and distortions produced by our inherited and socially conditional nature. However, we are not restricted by this for we can change. We are moving at an accelerated rate of speed and our state of consciousness is transforming and transcending. Many are awakening as our conscious awareness expands.
Among of the range of the organizational change that has been mentioned, I guess the most radical type of change would be the paradigm shifts. It is because Paradigm shift is a change from one way of thinking to another. It's a revolution, a transformation, a sort of metamorphosis. It just does not happen, but rather it is driven by agents of change. Paradigm shift also involves rethinking the whole nature of the business, a complete re-conception of how the system should function. So, it literally offers a new perception to the organization adopting such change. It allows the organization to rebuild their business processes from top to bottom. It conveys an idea to the organization way of thinking to replace the old processes progression.
References:
http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/feap/newsletters/managing-org.-change.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Change_management
http://www.brint.org/KMEbusiness.pdf
2 comments:
Heya im fresh to this. I came accross this chat board I have found It quite accessible and its helped me alot. I should be able to give something back and assist other users like it has helped me.
Thanks, See Ya Later
Howdy i am new on here, I came accross this forum I have found It amply accommodating & it's helped me a lot. I hope to give something back & guide other users like its helped me.
Thanks a load, See Ya About.
Post a Comment