From the case study, ‘The Engineering Change on the shop floor’, it is apparent that there is no clear change management framework, which is the core source of the problem.
Here, it is important to note that change management is very critical in various aspects of organizational projects aimed at leading, managing, and enabling the workforce to change from one operational process or technology to another (Ott, Parkes, & Simpson 2003, p. 77).
Therefore, change management should be centered on addressing various factors related to the organization and people, which may also drive or hinder the change process. However, considering this case, there are many management challenges related to the nature of the change and the complex nature of shared/outsourced services and processes.
First, there is lack of change ownership from the part of the delivery team, and thus the change is not felt because it is not thought to be important especially by the team leader and the second operative.
Moreover, both the engineer and the supervisor who in part are supposed to manage the change process through designing clear and effective decision-making processes have not lived to this requirement. Therefore, when the change management team/leaders prefer being transactional instead of transformational leaders, the risk is high that the pace of implementing change will be slow (Adel 2001, p. 266).
The second cause of the problem is that the right people are not fully involved in the change process. Here, there is a disconnect between the change management team and the delivery team, which seems to cause delayed decision-making, lack of vision, buy-in, focus, and direction (Rune 2005, p. 369).
Moreover, there is no psychological contract between the supervisor and his delivery team leader including the entire workforce considering that the supervisor does not involve the team leader in decision-making. Consequently, instead of the supervisor taking time to remove organizational barriers that can hinder the change process, he relies on the engineer to sell the change to his workforce.
This is a dangerous move in change management because studies note that change is very unsettling on the part of the workforce, and thus, the manager should assume the role of settling the change through understanding and managing the process in such a way that at least all the people can cope with the change (Adel 2001; Ott et al. 2003, p. 80).
Conclusions drawn from the case
From the case study and the foregoing discussions, it can be deduced that there is no clear-cut and effective framework for managing the change introduced in the electronics assembly department.
In the presence of such a framework, one would have expected to see the assessment of new skills relative to the introduced processes, training of staff to assume the new operational posts, planned rationalization of organizational workforce, and implementation of changes to the organizational culture in readiness for the changed operational processes. Instead, neither the supervisor nor the team leader is ready to consider the above-mentioned factors, which underlie change management.
Recommendations
In view of the above discussions, it is hereby recommended that the management and leadership of the electronics assembly department should enact a clear and effective change management framework. Accordingly, the framework should aim at managing skill assessment and staff training prior to assuming new operative roles, scheduling the duration of change, involving all the affected operational units and the people in the change process, and enabling two-way communication between all the stakeholders (Ash & Burn 2002, p. 374).
Most importantly, the framework should aim at initiating cultural change in the department in terms of changing from the normal ways of conducting business to new operational environments. Here, the most effective change management framework should follow a step-wise approach beginning with the consideration of cultural factors, organizational factors, leadership skills/competencies, people capabilities, and finally execution and continuous improvement of the change process.
Reference List
Adel, M.A., 2001. Change management strategies for successful ERP implementation. Business Process Management Journal, 7(3), pp. 266-275.
Ash, C.G., & Burn, J.M., 2002. A strategic framework for the management of ERP enabled e-business change. European Journal of Operational Research, 146(2), pp. 374-387.
Ott, J.S, Parkes, J.S., & Simpson, R.B., 2003. Classic readings in organizational behavior. USA: Thomson/Wadsworth Publishers.
Rune, T.B., 2005. Organizational change management: A critical review. Journal of Change Management, 5(4), pp. 369-380.