An improvisational Model for Change Management: The Case of Groupware Technologies

Whilst it is a good idea to bring ideas from other disciplines, in this case it seems to be quite a weak analogy. The notion of setting out on a course with no plan, but expect to get there in the end is nostalgic to the extreme.

The model presented in the paper is quite similar to prototyping used in design as a tool for capturing detailed customer requirements. There is no mention of prototyping in the references, however, indicating that ‘convergent evolution’ of ideas may have occurred.

I disagree with the notion of planning given by the paper to mean that ‘everything should be planned for’, only that there is a plan.

What is the definition of a plan? The paper doesn’t present any, yet this is a main focus of the research question.

To say that depth and complexity is only understood as changes are being implemented is true, but this is the project managers job. Experience with this type of job allows the project manager to develop an understanding of the type of changes to the plan that may be likely to happen and to build these allowances into the plan in the first place.

I found it difficult to understand the distinctions the authors were making between anticipated, emergent and opportunistic changes, so I made out a table to make it clearer to myself.

• Anticipated, Planned in advance, Yes, Deliberately enacted, Yes
• Emergent, Planned in advance, No, Deliberately enacted, No
• Opportunistic, Planned in advance, No, Deliberately enacted, Yes

There may be a problem with jazz analogy. According to a self-confessed jazz lover (Karl) jazz musicians don’t plan the composition in advance.

When one thing didn’t work (first and second lines) they just tried something else (senior specialist). Surely a company using a traditional planned approach would do this anyway? It is ridiculous to suggest that a company not using the proposed approach to change would not make these changes in the light of the particular situation the company was in.

I was wondering how staff had enough time to help other out when a higher headcount was needed in the first place – surely everyone was working to capacity? People at zeta seem unusually ‘nice’ which is not normally what you would expect in particular, the quote ‘I don’t care who gets credit for my work’ strikes me as being particularly unlikely. These assertions and the lack of recognised and documented resistance amongst staff lessens the papers’ credibility in my eyes. All the other papers I have reviewed in the course of this essay have documented resistance to the new systems that were being installed, but this paper only make a token reference to the developers reservations.

The paper has a point in noting the need for a ‘flexible environmental conditions change process’ but this is a greatly overshadowed by the presentation of a scenario which does not appear realistic given the political nature of change. At least some grumbling is expected but this is not shown.

The authors don’t at any stage show you what a ‘flexible environmental conditions change process’ is, exactly. There are no specific pointers to management about how best to use the authors’ concepts to plan for change more effectively. Surely when you propose a theory, you should also be able to propose a process for implementing it?

The outcome of the system implementation was that more people spent more time pushing paper to the extent that documentation skills were needed in hiring and there was a need for an increased headcount. So they spent lots of money on a system and then had to hire more people to make it work… was that what the expected outcome was at the start? Probably not…

‘Implicit access control policy’ is just another way of saying ‘we slowly figured out who to let use this data and who to block from it’.

Contrary to the opinions of the authors, I still believe that you have to budget money and resources because it would be foolish to just spend and then see how much you have left at the end.

In my opinion even a flawed plan is better than no plan. This paper seems to be a convenient escape route for project managers doing their job badly - if you haven’t thought of it in advance then you can say you were using this new ‘change model’ and cover your ass!