This paper provides as insight into various evaluation methods and focuses on the process-oriented approach as the most suitable in the case of CareCom and its colleagues.
For the success of any project, there are no common standards related to aspects that should be evaluated. Thus, several methods, including goal-oriented, process-oriented, and result-oriented evaluation, are applied (Doherty, 2010; Inamdar, 2022). In the case of CareCom, the process oriented approach should be applied at the initial stage of the Frailty Project (Harris and Tucker, no date). This choice is determined by the peculiarities of new strategies for innovation.
The Frailty Project presupposed a different approach to the coordination of services, organizational structure, and management control in comparison with a previous situation. That is why it was essential to evaluate how changes should be achieved and how knowledge sharing and communication would be established between leaders for goal achievements (TSNE, 2018; Harris and Tucker, no date). In addition, new approaches, such as localized decision-making, distributed change management, and knowledge sharing through informal events, were introduced, and the process-oriented evaluation would be essential for the assessment of their expediency. First of all, this method allows to strengthen knowledge in the evaluation of the project’s expediency. Moreover, the analysis of applied practices along with their positive and negative outcomes would allow to avoid mistakes and tunnel vision (Dodgson, Gann and Satter, 2008; Goffin and Mitchell, 2017; Newell et al., 2009; Frishammar et al., 2018). In addition, the process-oriented approach allows to identify the most efficient pathways for appropriate outcomes, and in the case of CareCom, the necessity of collaboration was considered (Clegg, Harris and Hopfl, 2011; Hayes, 2018). At the same time, process evaluation may be inaccurate in relation to progress made. Moreover, this approach may be inefficient for the prediction of outcomes, especially a project has external control. In the case of CareCom, regardless of all achievements made in the process of innovation, the project was in danger due to management’s shifted focus (Nielsen et al., 2018; Harris and Tucker, no date). Nevertheless, there are multiple companies that successfully apply the process-oriented approach and its evaluation. For example, Toyota as an innovative Toyota Production System that implies the focus on the continuous improvement of manufacturing processes (Process Excellence Network Editor; 2014). According to the company, the quality of technologies and management lead to customers’ satisfaction as the most appropriate results.
Reference List
Clegg, S. R., Harris, M. and Hopfl, H. (2011) Managing modernity: beyond bureaucracy? Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dodgson, M., Gann, D. and Satter, A. (2008) The management of technological innovation: strategy and practice. Oxford: OUP Oxford.
Doherty, I. (2010) ‘A research plan for evaluating a faculty project to achieve systemic change in the teaching culture.’ Curriculum, Technology & Transformation for an Unknown Future, pp. 310-312.
Frishammar, J. et al. (2018) ‘Opportunities and challenges in the new innovation landscape: implications for innovation auditing and innovation management’, European Management Journal, 37(2), pp. 151-164.
Goffin, K. and Mitchell, R. (2017) Innovation management: effective strategy and implementation. New York, NY: Red Global Press.
Harris, M. and Tucker, D. (no date) ‘CareCom: service innovation in health and social care.’ pp. 1-19.
Hayes, R. (2018) The theory and practice of change management. Basingstone: Palmgrave Macmillan.
Inamdar, A. (2022) Upskilling the evaluation procedure. Web.
Newell, S., et al. (2009) Managing knowledge work and innovation. Basingstoke: Palmgrave Macmillan.
Nielsen, J. A., et al. (2018) ‘Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning: a critical application of the 4I model.’ British Journal of Management, 29(4), pp. 835-850.
Process Excellence Network Editor (2014) 7 companies that forever changed the face of process excellence. Web.
TSNE (2018) Process evaluation vs. outcome evaluation. Web.