Change Management

Change Management

Change Management

Case Study: Change Management as Knowledge Generation?

In order to examine how concepts from the field of organisational knowledge may be able to provide us with alternative ways of viewing the issues that arise during change we use a case-based perspective to match patterns in the data with theoretical explanations (Yin, 1994). The case is of an engineering organisation, Design Co. Design Co. is a false name used to protect the identity of the organisation. The case is based on a series of interviews with senior managers, middle managers and non-managerial engineering staff in July 2000, about 18 months into the change process, and also documentary evidence. The interviews were focussed primarily on the 'Technical Directorate', the traditional engineering core of the organisation, and the part of the organisation most challenged by the changes.

The purpose of the following example is to illustrate common problems associated with change implementation. It is not meant to be an in-depth case analysis. The case illustrates typical change management problems - resistance from historically powerful groups, unhappiness with communication, and slow realisation of the extent of change required. Whilst this is not novel from a change management perspective, it provides a concrete example to work on which illustrates the relevance of the organisational knowledge concepts we are examining.

Design Co.

Design Co. is a division of a larger parent organisation that provides engineering solutions. The division was established as a standalone business with its own board as recently as 1999. It was formed from two departments which operated primarily as engineering design internal service units within the parent company. The newly formed division was set tough growth targets. It was to offer an integrated design service and achieve the growth targets by transforming from an engineering focussed organisation with a large proportion of its work coming from within the parent group, to a more entrepreneurial engineering services company with more work from external customers. The division was re-branded as Design Co. to give it a separate identity from the parent company in March 2000.

Structure

One of the first change priorities was to establish an infrastructure to deliver growth on a more planned basis in a less buoyant market in which it would not be possible to maintain historic growth rates without dedicated sales and marketing resources. The traditional hierarchical pyramid was replaced with a matrix, team based structure. Assessment centres were used to pick people for new positions, which challenged the traditional promotion mechanism of 'this person should do that'. The new infrastructure also required new people. Design Co. had people with good technical skills, but they lacked managerial capabilities. A new board was put in place and about 20 new reports to the board level were brought in. With the board in place, an account management strategy was introduced and account directors established. Other older managers were asked to leave, or redeployed. Some left by mutual agreement having recognised that they did not have the skills required by Design ...