IS Professional and users frustrations

What are the two most frequently experienced causes of frustration of IS professionals and users while working on an IS plan?

In every organization or business transactions, one individual could never avoid the fact that any project it not always lead to achievement of the plan. Since, they are working with an Information System Plan, a strategic planning must be consider.

Strategic planning is an organization's process of defining its strategy, or direction, and making decisions on allocating its resources to pursue this strategy, including its capital and people. Various business analysis techniques can be used in strategic planning, including SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats ) and PEST analysis (Political, Economic, Social, and Technological analysis) or STEER analysis involving Socio-cultural, Technological, Economic, Ecological, and Regulatory factors. According to other source, strategic plan is a document used by an organization to align its organization and budget structure with organizational priorities, missions, and objectives. It is also a process of comprehensive, integrative program planning that considers, at a minimum, the future of current decisions, overall policy, organizational development, and links to operational plans. . A satisfactory strategic plan must be realistic and attainable so as to allow managers and entrepreneurs to think strategically and act operationally. In align with that, strategic plan must be reliable and suitable for the need of the company.

In doing a strategic plan, it is not really known to everyone that there are frustrations that may trigger. Frustrations in a way that it may cause depression and stress to the professionals and users that are doing it. In doing an Information Strategic plan, it is really a must that the user and the professionals doing it must first determine the company’s background and other facts and information that can help and then again be a useful tool for the planning.

Like in the situation of any IS professional, the Systems Analyst/Software Engineers which always consider their clients with systems that they are working on. Seldom it is being denied by the involve parties, that the systems they are developing, least on what they are expecting will lead to failure. Thus, giving frustrations to the Systems Analyst/ Software Engineers itself and especially to the users.

In today's increasingly competitive marketplace, an organization can't afford to fall short in strategic decision-making or execution. But, finding out where and why efforts are falling short can be tricky.

Organizational frustration has been defined by Paul Spector in a very similar fashion, and refers to an interference with goal attainment or maintenance that is caused by some stimulus condition within the organization (Spector, 1978). It has been further narrowed to be defined as the interference with an individual’s ability to carry out their day to day duties effectively (Keenan & Newton, 1984). The sources of organizationalfrustration put forth by Spector include the physical environment (both natural and man-made), the organizational structure and climate, the rules and procedures of the organization, and individuals both in and out of the organization. In addition, the concept of situational constraints (Peters & O'Connor, 1980) has been hypothesized to contribute to organizational frustration (Storms & Spector, 1987). Spector (1978) suggested four reactions to organizational frustration: 1) an emotional response of anger and increased physiological arousal, 2) trying alternative courses of action, 3) aggression, and 4) withdrawal. Of the behavioral reactions, only the second one – that of trying alternative courses of action to obtain the goal – is an adaptive response, while the other three are maladaptive. It is likely that the emotional reaction accompanies one of the three behavioral reactions, although the emotional reaction may be maladaptive by itself and become a further impediment to goal attainment. Clearly, should an individual become frustrated, it is in the best interests of the organization to have the individual respond in an adaptive way and attempt to find another solution to the problem in a clear decisive manner. Spector also put forth the idea that some mild forms of frustration may be seen as challenges rather than problems for some individuals, thus causing a motivational effect rather than a hindering effect and increasing the likelihood of an adaptive response rather than a maladaptive one.

Frustration with technology is a major reason why people cannot use computers to reach their goal, hesitate to use computers, or avoid computers altogether. A recent study from the Pew Internet and American Life study found that a large percentage of people never go online, because they find the technology to be too frustrating and overwhelming (Pew, 2003). Currently, 42% of Americans do not use the Internet, in large part because they find it to be frustrating and confusing. This is not surprising; previous research on user frustration found that users wasted nearly one-third to one-half of the time spent on the computer, due to frustrating experiences (Bessiere, 2002; Bessiere, Lazar, Ceaparu, Robinson, & Shneiderman, 2003).

Unfortunately, computer applications are often designed with interfaces that are hard to use, and features that are hard to find. Even government web sites, which are supposed to provide easy access to government information for all citizens, are frequently hard to use and produce high levels of user frustration (Ceaparu, 2003). Frustration with technology can lead to wasted time, changed mood, and affected interaction with colleagues. When users in a workplace are frustrated with their computers, it can lead to lower levels of job satisfaction (Murrell & Sprinkle, 1993). In some cases, user frustration with technology can even lead to increased blood volume pressure and muscle tension (Riseberg, Klein, Fernandez, & Picard, 1998)

Research on computer frustration has shown that that computer self-efficacy and attitudes play a significant role in reducing the frustration levels in computing. Level of comfort with the computer and the determination to fix a problem, which are associated with a high level of computer self efficacy, both appear as important factors in both the immediate experience of frustration as well as the overall frustration level after a session of computer use. In the previous study on computer frustration, computer attitude variables mediated the experience of frustration but experience did not. Simply using a computer, therefore, does not lessen user frustration; rather it is one’s attitude towards it and comfort with it.

Computers can be valuable tools, and networked resources via the Internet can be beneficial to many different populations and communities. Unfortunately, when people are unable to reach their task goals due to frustrating experiences, this can hinder the effectiveness of technology.

Computing systems this era raises high in a short period of time. Though our country is a 5 year behind than those countries abroad, still using internet is a common tool for someone like in communications. And more likely in a business, it is also a trend of using internet and intranet in their operations since it can help progress their company. Now a day, an even small scale business also acquires using internet and computers for their daily routine. That is because it can help them improve their skills and at the same time it can lessen the work load since using computers doesn’t requires much time.

Some organizations, are simply better than most at producing results. Likely, they have learned to address frustrations, any one of which is capable of stymieing the effectiveness of the organization. It maybe they are not performing their duties well. Besides, the execution of their strategic plan may be lacking. There could also be business results that are not optimal.

Strategic execution is a difficult discipline for any organization. They might say that "We don't need more knowing; we need more doing." This usually leads to frustration; a feeling that your annual strategic planning process is ineffective. And in the end resulting to disappointment with the lack of action, traction, and results from your strategic planning efforts.

Improving business results is the primary reason for engaging in strategic planning, yet in many organizations, this common exercise feels like an exercise in futility. Initially, holding a strategic planning session brings the executive team together by stimulating a lot of good conversation and new ideas. This feels good at the time, but unfortunately, it's usually nothing more than a temporary "sugar buzz." Once the session is over and the enthusiasm begins to fade, each team member returns to the status quo. They quickly get pulled back into tactical fire fighting, focusing their attention on their own department needs rather than the organizational plans agreed to in the planning session. Without clear, consistent action on shared initiatives, the entire organization struggles to establish any kind of momentum.

Basically, we could never say or predict what will happen in every system that will be developing by any Systems Analyst/Software Engineers and so on throughout their job. To have a touch of reality here, we have interviewed an IS professional on what did he thinks the two most frequently experienced causes of frustration of IS professionals and users while working on an IS plan.

According to him the following could be considered as the usual frustrations any IS professional and users may encounter during an IS Plan.

· Budget

A budget is one of those pivotal tools that is used across many departments within a company. For the developers, it dictates how much time to spend on specific areas of the application. For the project manager, it's a baseline used to determine whether the project is on track. For sales or the client, it correlates directly to the success of the effort. It's no surprise that one of the biggest issues in creating a budget is interpretation.

Based on their organization, there are certain situation that the budget for a particular project is not properly allocated. Thus, giving a perspective for them on not continuing the project since they have given limited resources and eventually could make the project fail. This is really a frustration to the Software developer’s side especially if the system is already in the process of User Acceptance Test. It is already hard for them to continue for they have insufficient funds.

Regardless of how close you come to reality, a client will be much happier if your project comes in below budget than over it; however, too high a risk value can create sticker shock, revealing inexperience and creating misgivings about your management abilities. By following the guidelines we've suggested and applying some common sense, you can be assured that your team, project drivers, and client will enjoy the benefits of a well-estimated project.

At the same time the user will be more frustrated because the deliverables are not being given to them properly and on time. The time problem could also be included in this frustration for if less budget is allocated to a certain project, there will be a tendency for the developer to cram if it already in the period of presenting it to its client. As I have said, the users are expecting for the said project to be deliver on that time then because of some delays, the developers tend to commit mistakes and in the end, ensuing to a project failure. And another big cost is at stake for this letdown.

· Well-Structured design

Another would be this one, according to him, the design of a certain system should be in a manner of a well-structured design so that in a middle of any software development the client would not always complain. Because for them, the users have the tendency of adding up enhancements to their system. Suggesting new additional features, hence, the system will be prone to bugs. It would be a great frustration for the developers because they could not easily perfect the system for the complaints of the client can give to them. Also, in the user’s side, it would be a frustration for the slow productivity the developer could have give to them.

Both on the users and developers are the frustrations could been experiences. Since they are both involved in the Information System Plan, they cannot avoid these certain things. For the developers, it is very frustrating for not giving the proper service to their clients and not offering the satisfaction the users should also accept. It is just so sad to hear that these frustration are being encountered also because of the developer or the user either. For the reason that every success of a system comes from the cooperation of the involve people. Not to play as the worsening effect to any developer or a user instead.

References:

http://www.allbusiness.com/human-resources/workforce-management-hiring-consulting/872033-1.html

http://www.stanford.edu/group/siqss/itandsociety/v01i03/v01i03a02.pdf

to our interviewee from Davao Light and Power Company

Critical Success Factors

Critical Success Factors

In simple terms, any organization that produces products and/or delivers services should be viewed as a transformation mechanism requiring continuous process improvement and innovation. When appropriate events and conditions trigger action (process initiation), customer requirements and organizational resources such as raw materials, money, information, and yes, processes are transformed into goods, services, and business outcomes for the customers' benefit or for the process completion.

What is a Critical Success Factor?

Rockart defined CSFs as:

"The limited number of areas in which results, if they are satisfactory, will ensure successful competitive performance for the organization. They are the few key areas where things must go right for the business to flourish. If results in these areas are not adequate, the organization's efforts for the period will be less than desired."

He also concluded that CSFs are "areas of activity that should receive constant and careful attention from management."

Critical Success Factors (CSF’s) are the critical factors or activities required for ensuring the success your business. The term was initially used in the world of data analysis, and business analysis.

Most smaller and more pragmatic businesses can still use CSF’s but we need to take a different, more pragmatic approach.

Critical Success Factors have been used significantly to present or identify a few key factors that organizations should focus on to be successful.

As a definition, critical success factors refer to "the limited number of areas in which satisfactory results will ensure successful competitive performance for the individual, department, or organization”.

Critical success Factors define key areas of performance that are essential for the organization to accomplish its mission. Identifying the business drivers for change and the critical success factors is the most important element of any business transformations. John F. Rockart concludes that CSF’s are areas of activity that should receive constant and careful attention from management. Critical success factors are strongly related to the mission and strategic goals of your business project. Whereas the mission and goals focus on the aims and what is to be achieved. Critical success factors focus on the most important areas and get to the very heart of both what is to be achieved and how you will achieve it.

The critical success factor (CSF) approach is a technique that will aid health administrators, planners and managers to identify, specify and sort among the most relevant and critical factors determining an organization's survival and success. Following a top-down management perspective, this paper discusses the CSF methodology as a strategic information management process comprising several important phases: (i) understanding the external factors such as the organization's industry, market and environment; (ii) achieving strong support and championship from top management; (iii) encouraging the proactive involvement of management and staff in generic CSF identification; (iv) educating and directing the participation of staff members in CSF verification and further refinement of generic CSFs into specific CSFs; and (v) aggregating, prioritizing and translating activity-related CSFs into organizational information requirements for the design of the organization's management information infrastructure. The implementation of this CSF approach is illustrated in the context of a British Columbia community hospital, with insights provided into key issues for future health researchers and practitioners.

For most businesses, there are only a generally a limited number of areas – like sales or product development – which makes a business succeed. We can select critical success factor with insights and analysis. The success or failure of your business depends on how you approach your unique set of critical success factors. Understanding these factors and spending 100 percent attention to them is a sure way to add power to your efforts and jump start towards a new level of performance.

Identifying Critical Success Factors is important as it allows firms to focus their efforts on building their capabilities to meet the Critical Success Factor's, or even allow firms to decide if they have the capability to build the requirements necessary to meet Critical Success Factors (CSF's).

Critical Success Factors is identifying as a very iterative process. Every mission, strategic goals and Critical Success Factors are essentially linked and each will be refined as you develop them.

Here are five steps to Critical Success Factors that will directly affect your success in achieving any goal:

• Establish your businesses or project's mission and strategic goals.

In achieving a success for an organization it is always a must to identify your mission, goals and objectives because these will serve as a basis on how will you decide what could be the possible Critical Success Factors that you are going to apply.  You cannot skip on choosing your critical success factors unless you identify your mission and goals. In identifying your Critical Success Factors is just like identifying your plans or your ways of achieving your goals and objectives and making your mission possible to happen. For a project to have its significance and completion in due time, it would start with a mission and a set of goals. A project can also be done without these goals and mission but it is best for a team to be specific in what they would want to conquer within the whole development duration. It would also be easy for them to identify the activities that they will be dealing with towards the endpoint since a precise set of targets are known from the very beginning.

• For each strategic goal, ask yourself "what area of business or project activity is essential to achieve this goal?" The answers to the question are your candidate CSFs.

There are four basic types of Critical Success Factor's.

Industry Critical Success Factor's (CSF's) resulting from specific industry characteristics; these factors result from specific industry characteristics. These are the things that the organization must do to remain competitive.

Strategy Critical Success Factor's (CSF's) resulting from the chosen competitive strategy of the business; these factors result from the specific competitive strategy chosen by the organization. The way in which the company chooses to position themselves, market themselves, whether they are high volume low cost or low volume high cost producers, etc.

Environmental Critical Success Factor's (CSF's) resulting from economic or technological changes; these factors result from macro-environmental influences on an organization. Things like the business climate, the economy, competitors, and technological advancements are included in this category.

Temporal Critical Success Factor's (CSF's) resulting from internal organizational needs and changes; these factors result from the organization's internal forces. Specific barriers, challenges, directions, and influences will determine these CSFs.

Towards these given types of Critical Success Factors, you are then ready to answer the step two and would mainly used in the business process your organization operates.

• Evaluate the list of candidate CSFs to find the absolute essential elements for achieving success - these are your Critical Success Factors.

After it, you should have identify the resources, assistance, information or anything else that might be needed to reach the goal. As you identify and evaluate candidate CSFs, you may uncover some new strategic objectives or more detailed objectives. So you may need to define your mission, objectives and CSFs iteratively. Deriving other data or information about the subject of your project or goal is also important. After you have identified and specify your strategic goals and objectives, then you have to list down the possible Critical Success Factors that could be used to help that goals and objectives be achieved. This helps you maintain the impact of your Critical Success Factors, and so give good direction and prioritization to other elements of your business or project strategy.

• Identify how you will monitor and measure each of the CSFs.

The monitoring and measuring each CSF’s is effectively done during surveys, interviews and research toward the people. The most important data collection activity is conducting interviews with participants. In this activity, the participants have an opportunity to talk about their management challenges and their contributions to the organization and/or the operational unit’s successes and failures. The interactive nature of the interview process provides opportunities for clarification and for guiding the interview in areas that might expose particular barriers and obstacles to accomplishing the mission.

 

Step Five: Communicate your CSFs along with the other important elements of your business or project's strategy.

It is a basic thing that every element in an organization communicates with each other in order to organize all the data that work along with the business strategies.

 

Step Six: Keep monitoring and reevaluating your CSFs to ensure you keep moving towards your aims. Indeed, whilst CSFs are sometimes less tangible than measurable goals, it is useful to identify as specifically as possible how you can measure or monitor each one.

 

Critical Success Factor is a great element of an organizational activity which is central to its future success. Critical success factors may change over time, and may include items such as product quality, employee attitudes, manufacturing flexibility, and brand awareness. This can enable analysis. Thus giving any organization the courage to make plans and establishing business strategies according to the mission, vision, objectives and goals that set by the company. It is a nice start for every company so that every end of the day, they could see a beautiful result from all their hardships which is the great success they have made.

 

References:

http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newLDR_80.htm
http://www.army.mil/ArmyBTKC/focus/cpi/csf.htm
http://rapidbi.com/created/criticalsuccessfactors.html

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