The readiness involved in planning and implementing scale and sustainability focuses on the identification of core program elements. The most effective components that have to be sustained and scaled are then determined. First, the program has to serve a particular need and should guarantee market.
All the stakeholders of the change strategy should be made to believe that the program to be scaled and sustained will serve a particular purpose and impact positively to the overall performance of the organization. The change agent has to conduct market surveys to identify whether the need to be addressed by the program is actually existent in the market. Second, the critical non-negotiable elements of the program are identified.
Effective scaling and sustaining of a program require identification of a few essential elements that should be implemented in a manner that coincides to that of the original users of the program. This can be achieved through evaluation since the change agent can easily identify core elements that are significant and need to be sustained and distinguish them from those that are not imperative to the efficient functioning of the organization (Spiro, 2011).
The cost of the program is the last significant element that should be determined by the change agent. The change agent should identify the cost of running the program and all the funding received from various institutions. Program sustainability entails getting sufficient funding to aid in running the project rather than getting more funds from external funding institutions.
The necessity of identifying hard choices concerning the allocation of resources to various programs in an organization is essential for effective program sustainability.
The change agent should ensure that the program receives funding from the resources that had been allocated to less productive programs in the organization so as to increase the productivity of the organization. Scaling and sustaining of a program can also be achieved by incorporating the program into an existing one (Spiro, 2011).
The change agent should ensure that sustaining and scaling processes are planned from the onset of the initiative. This is significant in incorporating new institutions and partners during the course of the program implementation that are vital to the sustaining process. Training future leaders is the fundamental element in the change strategy since it guarantees program sustenance.
The transitions and turnover of staff members should also be properly managed since changing key personnel in a program hampers sustainability and scale of the program. Transitions plans should therefore be devised to minimize program disruptions since new employees do not understand the operations of an already existing program. Consequently, they tend to abandon the program thus altering its sustenance and scale (Dede & Knox, 2009).
The non-negotiable elements of the program include the availability of expert trainers that are supposed to train the company’s trainers on the operations and principles of the program. This guarantees effective implementation of the program that will in turn ensure that the intended objective is met. Secondly, a program guide that should be adhered to by all the stakeholders of the program is mandatory. The guide should precisely elaborate all the key steps in the program implementation process.
Moreover, there should be a central and secure storage location for the computer system that controls all the operations of the company using the new technology. This ensures that the system is not susceptible to information security attacks that can ruin its functionality. Consultants should also be hired by the company.
They will be responsible for training the trainers to guarantee effective program implementation. Lastly, the program should conform to insurance regulations and guidelines. This ensures that the company gets support from the insurance regulatory board so as to experience a smooth running of its operations (Elias, Graczyk, Weissberg, & Zins, 2003).
The scale score sheet of the program entails the extent of incorporation of core elements of the program into the practice. For instance, in the planning phase, the comprehensive program plan was supported by most members of the staff. Consequently, the score of the program under the planning and implementation phases was 4.
The total score was therefore 8 out of 10. Therefore, there was a need to address resistance setback that was responsible for the reduced acceptance of the program aspects. There was a score of 10 for the program’s effectiveness towards the desired objective. Consequently, there were no issues to be addressed in the scale category. Furthermore, the program scored 5 and 4 with regard to its quality and depth respectively. Resistance was responsible for the lost mark on its score thus had to be addressed.
The sustainability of the program focused on its score with regard to 10 elements. For instance, the score of the policies, regulations and laws was 10 in both the planning and implementation phases. This was as a result of the compliance of the program to insurance authorities. Key individual’s participation element score was 8 out of 10, with the deficit being attributed to resistance. The company addressed the issue by educating the resisting members on the significance of the program.
External partnership’s elements score was 5 out of 10 since the regulatory authority was the only external participant. The score of the capacity of internal organization brought about by the project was 8 out of 10.
The deficit was attributed to resistance. Human capital score was 9 out of 10 since most of the original employees of the company were re-trained to perform new roles that were in tandem with the program. The average score of the program’s funding was 6. The low value was attributed to the little number of external funding institutions as the company funded most of its operations.
The average score for culture element was 3 since the program did not extend existing cultures of the organization. Continuous improvement score was 10 since the program was continuously monitored and evaluated to gauge its performance with regard to the intended objectives. Communications element scored 9.
The tremendous score was attributed to the effective communication framework that had been implemented to guarantee understanding of all the aspects of the program. The score of the evaluation element was 10 since effective evaluation strategies had been adopted by the change manager. The total sustainability score of the program was therefore 78 out of 100.
Resistance was the main issue that hampered the success of the project. Effective strategies are therefore necessary in order to address resistance-related issues. For instance, the usability and use of the program should be assessed before its implementation so as to identify possible sources of resistance. The capacity of the organization to support the implementation should also be determined prior to the implementation phase.
This ensures that all stakeholders of the program are informed on its significance so as to offset resistance and guarantee full support and implementation of the project. Furthermore, in order to guarantee the sustainability of the program, priority should be directed to the key sustainability elements of the program including the culture, communications, evaluation, funding, policies, stakeholders’ participation and external partnerships (Peirce, 2007).
References
Dede, C., & Knox, A. (2009). Using technology to scale up innovations. Retrieved from https://thejournal.com/Articles/2009/05/06/Using-Technology-to-Scale-Up-Innovations.aspx
Elias, M.J., Graczyk, P.A., Weissberg, R.P., & Zins, J.E. (2003). Implementation, Sustainability, and Scaling up of Social-Emotional and Academic Innovations in Public Schools. School Psychology Review, 32(3), 303–319.
Peirce, N. (2007). Sustainable Cities. The American Prospect, 18(1), 6.
Spiro, J. (2011). Leading change step-by-step: Tactics, tools, and tales. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.