Change Management Simulation Case Study
CCT 355 E-Business Technologies
Change Management Simulation Assignment
Group #4:
Timur Khamitov (995666989)
Kevieon Barker (995420343)
Tarek El Saad (994959265)
Division of Labour
We have divided up the entire work load into five main stages, with the following break-down:
Analyze: For this part of the report, firstly, each group member studied the case as well as the change primer to get a detailed understanding of the problem at hand.
Secondly, each group member has spent time with the game, experimenting with the tactics and their consequences.
A key aspect of this component is conducting interviews of the Management.
The list of departments interviewed was split up based on the following break-down: …show more content…
Tarek: Administration Department
Kevieon: Marketing
Timur: Manufacturing, R&D
Plan list of adequate tactics
Tarek: Summarize the change primer with additional notes.
Timur: roughly break down the list of all available tactics into the 7 stages outlined in the primer.
Implement tactics
Kevieon: enter the available tactics into the game in various order.
Evaluate tactics used
Collective activity, group discussion of tactics used
Interviews
Administration
Maurice Gagnon - CEO
· Very worried about present managerial state
· Need a leader
· Not happy with Brian
· Thinking about coming out of retirement
· Company changed a lot since Brian took over
· Company may have grown too much
· Likes Brians cost containment initiatives
· Market has changed
· Company should be doing better
· Company has great resources
· Bit performing as well as competitors
· Need action and results
· There should be two divisions 1:military , 2: commercial
· Not happy
· Problem is Rob Brown is a problem, thinks problems wouldn’t be around if union and Rob weren’t around
Brian Johnson – President
· Company is largely result of his ideas
· Feels like has failed because has to bring in consultant
· Exceptional departmental strength and cutting edge R&D, high quality manufacturing, decent marketing department
· Occasional communication breakdown “when this happens, all hell breaks loose”. Occurs a lot
· No need for organizational shake up, cant afford it
· Creating ad hoc or semi-permanent cross-functional teams
· Bad communication between departments need to “break down walls”
· Team approach will help communication problems
· Wants people to know how serious situation is
· Union and Robert brown a problem
· Jennifer smith good ally and great supporter
· Will not leave company in crisis
Jennifer Smith – VP Tech
· Job is to integrate the efforts of R&D, Marketing and manufacturing
· Create new good products fast
· Has been dealing with a lot of mediation between departments
· New employee who has experience to give R&D a commercial orientation
· Cross functional teams are critical
· R&D desiging what manufacturing cant build and what customers don’t want. (problem with R&D)
· Department structures are very isolated
· Need to get people to communicate more and problem solve together
· Company needs restructuring
· A lot of tension between management
· Brian not fond of Robert Brown.
· R&D and Marketing hate each other not communicating
Guy Tremblay - VP Human resources
· Likes the ideas of teams
· Big changes
· A lot of stress
· Need fresh perspective
· Energy channeled into conflict
· No vision or support to implement vision
· Mature workforce. No need for training
· Brian Johnson and rob brown don’t get along
· No one person is barrier to change.
· Need a group of people to lead change
· Integrated Teams, matrix structure
Ann Price - Personnel Manager
· Responsible for overseeing all human resource functions
· Responsible for organizing training
· Has a lot of responsibilities. Overworked
· Not supportive of outsourcing training
· Believes training is important
· Cuts in funding to human resources lead to low morale and cuts in participation for training
· Commercial focus has not reached lower level workers
· Lower level workers are in the dark
· Communication gap between upper management and low level employees
· Moral big problem
· Bring low level employees into decision making process.
· Attitude in the organization that training is not needed. Not good
· Need to build competent and committed workforce if going to succeed
Cheryl Stewart - VP Finance
· Feels that military contracts offer more
· Military contracts encourage R&D
· Many problems in company
· R&D and marketing not communicating
· Manufacturing failed to address cost issue
· Banks hesitant to finance company
· Only recently has finance department gotten attention
· At current cost and production levels company will be out of business in 18 months
Fred Williams - Account Manager
· Problem is lack of information systems
· Don’t share information
· Believes should get MIS
· Need to go commercial
· Influential people: Scott Bell, Brian Johnson and Jennifer Smith
· Company had to make budget cuts
· Budget cuts positive thing
MARKETING
Cathy Lalonde – VP Marketing
· First priority – reorganize marketing along product lines
· Long run goal - Meeting demands of the market
· Less on fine tuning and more on developing user friendly consumer demands
· Hiring young sales people
· Recognize commercial market is the future
· Create technologies for the commercial market
· Claims that Scott Bell is a biggest obstacle to change o He’s old school and not used to the new commercial approach o Focuses too much on the big ‘R’ of research and not enough of development
John Simmons – Marketing Coordinator
· Communicate new market information and opportunities
· Think we communicate well, but not well within and between departments
· Good idea to bring people together and get them talking
· Responsibilities: o Provide market support to commercial and military groups o Coordination of resources for marketing activities o Look for new business opportunities
· Thinks growth is going to be found in the commercial market.
· Thinks marketing in the firm is good
· Brian Johnson made a good decision in hiring Catherine Lalonde because of her ability to think into the future
· Thinks R&B needs a lot of work o A conflict between military and commercial groups
· Think the military market does not have much growth left, but the commercial market has room for potential growth
· Thinks Roger realizes the limited growth in the military market and offers excellent experience for young talent in the firm
· Thinks Sam Seto’s ambitious and agile characteristics are crucial to success in the commercial market
Roger Thomas – Military Contracts
· “The Old Guy”
· Thinks that the sales force is young and inexperienced, but believes that Lalonde brought everyone on board for a reason.
· States that the market for military contracts have dried up. Recognizes not much more room for development in military products.
· R&D used to deal with customers directly, but now, the roles have reversed and marketing deal with customers and relay the information to R&D. And believes that R&B has problems adjusting to role reversals.
· Problem – R&D does NOT listen to marketing
· Solution – Scott Bell needs a “kick in the ass” because if he won’t listen to changes, no-one in the R&B department will listen.
· Think Catherine is doing an admirable job
· Thinks time is running out for him since he is no longer the ‘big gun’
Manufacturing
Richard Wright – VP Manufacturing
· Praises Scott Bell for being a smart guy but criticizes Catherine Lalonde for having a “know it all” attitude.
· Claims the manufacturing department’s attention to detail is one of the firm’s competitive strengths
· Against the use of formal teams since he thinks that things are already running ‘smoothly’
· Problem: o Thinks the company lost focus o Believes that a focus on military contracts is the way to go
· Conflicts with Rob Brown (Rob and Brian don’t get along)
· Union o Feels that workers believe that the union is the only way to preserve jobs
· Against the marketing department’s approach to appeal to customers
· Solution o Focus less on a customer appeal approach o Focus more on military contracts
Ralphy Jones – Shop Supervisor
· Problem o Conflict between R&B and Marketing departments
· Opposes the use of teams because “people like the routine”.
· Thinks that the union shop is trouble free
· Believes that Rob Brown ‘stirred things up’ by causing job insecurity, but believes that he has the workers best interest at heart
· States that worker morale is low and affect job performance
Jane Crown- Quality Assurance
It’s her job to maintain the quality of the products that GlobalTech is known for.
Feels that manufacturing department isn’t ready for commercial operations.
The increasing product variation is slowing manufacturing down. Need to re-organize manufacturing.
Initially, they only produced a handful of systems, quality was easy to maintain. Then became harder, in a meeting of the heads of depts. R&D was requested to make manufacturing easier.
Durability is the key quality standard.
They try to apply their same strict standards as military to commercial products.
Two more inspection centres needed.
With the current product mix her stations are over-crowded and over worked.
Important feedback loop with R&D on products and defects etc.
Rob Brown- Union Representative
· Thinks the union has done great things for the company, increased wages etc.
· Recently, he feels that job security is a problem. People are worried.
· NAFTA and other trade agreements are the problem; cause for decreased military contracts.
· The solution is to get rid of NAFTA (Politically) and within the company; be prepared to make concessions.
· Diverse workforce at GlobalTech both ethnically and skill set wise. Union covers everyone.
· Argues that Brian Johnson is rarely around. Jennifer Smith is taking up a lot of the slack.
· Personal dislike towards Maurice Gagnon, partly because Brown formed the union to get ride of Gagnon's old school tactics.
· Brown gets along with VP of HR Guy Tremblay pretty well. Upcoming round of negotiations will be tough- Brown has full support of membership and is ready to strike, if …show more content…
needed.
Research and Development
Scott Bell- VP Research and Development
· Likes pushing the limits of technology. He is really proud of work that they do; his department has over a dozen patents, 4 of which are his.
· Department operates as teams. (Slight bitterness towards Marketing Department who isn’t marketing as well as he thinks they should).
· Unhappy about management cutting the R&D budget by 30%. He argues that its their only competitive advantage.
· Thinks the management is a problem. Before Johnson ‘blew up’ ideas were passed out around. Nowadays, not much exchange of ideas. Cross functional teams wont work according to him.
· Situation isn’t as bad as it seems. Some people holding company back, once their gone and things will get fixed.
· He isn’t too happy with where its going or the leader of change; Jennifer Smith. Excellence in research is most important for him.
· Claims that GlobalTech’s most valuable asset is their technological advantage.
Ganesh Seth- Technology Manager
He is responsible for allocating resources to requests of scientists.
Good relations with Scott Bell, working on projects with him. Feels he has done much good for R&D dept.
The problem is a leadership one. And cutting the budget for the R&D department.
Really bad time to cut budget. They are on verge of exciting discovery.
They are supreme in military products, not in commercial. Either way, technology is superior, just not getting marketed right.
Some long term projects have been cut due to budget cuts.
James Clarke (commercial manager) is working hard as well as allocation of many top scientists.
Seanna Grey- Military Manager
She is the military manager.
Less resources but capacity doubled (military and commercial now).
Marketing Department is getting more money but sales are falling.
She feels that the R&D is the core of globaltech as they are the reason for their technological competitive edge.
The solution is to focus on military products again.
Some of her best workers are at the commercial department. Animosity between the two.
Breakthrough in military technology is coming up. Should be key to survival due to high demand.
GlobalTech is her home. She has done a lot for the company.
James Clarke- Commercial Manager
His role is to impose marketing’s product requirements into their products.
He is trying to increase co-operation between R&D and marketing.
He is facing problems getting resource allocation for his commercial products.
R&D department is too research focused.
The problem is the switch of focus of the R&D department.
There is not enough resources/money and military products get priority.
Teams are needed, but difficult to implement.
Scott is a good scientist, but bad manager.
Summary: The R&D began as the most important department, who developed all the key technology that made GlobalTech a leader in military GPS set-up. As the number of military contracts has been falling, the R&D department is getting less and less resources due to 2 main reasons: 1) Falling revenues 2) Creation of commercial products. James Clarke is put in place to maintain good ties with Marketing who set the agenda in regards to what commercial products need to be created. Scott Bell and Seanna Grey are heavy pro-military supporters who have been around GlobalTech since the beginning.
Assessment of Tactics
Break Down of Tactics by Stage
1. Understand the need for change.
Benchmarking.
Employee Interviews
Focus group interviews.
Identify problem.
Stakeholder mapping.
Suggestion program.
2. Enlist a core change team.
Appoint Core Change Team
Hire a lobbyist.
Identify Change Agent.
New product development team.
Team Pilot Project
3. Envisage. Develop a vision and strategy.
Briefing on vision and strategy.
Competitive and financial.
Develop vision and strategy.
Team Mentoring.
Team site visits.
4. Motivate. Create a sense of urgency.
Constant repetition of urgency.
Disaster Scenario Video.
Reward individual efforts.
5. Communicate the vision.
CEO gives upbeat speech.
Core Change Team Presentations.
Departmental Q&A session.
Large group intervention.
Outline changes and challenges.
Professional Objectives.
Reassuring announcement.
Set new commercial targets.
Teams Training
6. Act. Take action.
Cost rationalization
Departmental Liaison Team
Develop Training Infrastructure.
Downsize company.
Financial.
Fire an individual.
ISO 9000 Certification.
Management Information Systems
Product improvement team.
Quality improvement seminar.
Reengineer company.
Restructure company into teams.
Restructure compensation.
Review Structure.
7. Consolidate gains.
Celebrate Success
Publicize Team Successes.
Primary Implementation/Evaluation
Tactics Used for First Successful Victory:
Based on our preliminary plan and our first success, the tactics employed are described below. Unsuccesfully implemented tactics are underlined and discussed below.
1. Outline Changes and Challenges (+0)
2. Focus Group Interviews (+2)
3. Employees Interviews (+4)
4. Identify Problem (+4)
5. Identify Change Agent (+2)
6. Stakeholder Mapping (+5)
7. Appoint Core Change Team (+3)
8. Fire an Individual (-3)
9. Develop Vision and Strategy (+5)
10. Briefing on Vision and Strategy (+1)
11. Benchmarking (+1)
12. Competitive and Financial (+1)
13. Competitive (+5)
14. Financial (+4)
15. Departmental Q&A Sessions (+3)
16. Disaster Scenario Video (+2)
17. Constant Repetition of Vision (+0)
18. Core Change Team Presentation (+2)
19. Teams Training (+3)
20. Develop Training Infrastructure (+1)
21. Departmental Liaison Team (+2)
22. Team Pilot Project (+0)
23. New Product Development Team (+1)
24. Product Improvement Team (+0)
25. Quality Improvement Seminar (-3)
26. Team Mentoring (+3)
27. Restructure Compensation (+2)
28. Team Site Visits (+0)
29. Publicize Team Successes (+4)
Summary
Outcome: 60% Buy-In
Leadership score: 820/1000
Budget: 100% Used
Time: 97% Used (2 weeks left)
Important Notes
Benchmarking should have been done at an earlier stage of the change theory. Ideally, it should have been implemented in Stage 1 where you understand the need for change. Doing this will help managers first understand the need for change and build a strong strategy.
Outline Changes and Challenges would have been more effective if utilized at Stage 5 at the communication phase of the change theory.
Implementing it as our first tactic was not very effective.
Identfy Change Agent would have been more effective if implemented immediately after stakeholder mapping. Also, choosing Jennifer Smith would have been more effective since she possesses all four characteristics of a good leader.
Quality Improvement Seminar appeared to be harmless but decreased "buy in" by 3%. The seminar appeared to confuse workers and could be left out in future approaches.
Fire an Individual also decreased "buy in" by 3%. Instead of implementing this tactic at the stage where we created a "change team", we might have benefitted more if implementing this tactic at the last stage of the change theory where we consolidate gains. Doing this would help the company in moving forward since Scott Bell proved to be a resister in the R&D department.
Positives:
Building a training system before organizing teams
Publicizing team successes at the last stage of the Change Theory
Secondary Implementation/Evaluation
Stage 1: Need for Change
1) Focus Group Interviews
(+2)
2) Benchmarking (+3)
3) Employee Interviews (+4)
4) Identify Problem (+4)
Stage 2: Enlist a core Change Team
1) Stakeholder mapping (+5)
2) Appoint a core change team (+3)
3) Identify change agent (+3)
Stage 3: Envisage
1) Develop vision and strategy (+5)
2) Briefing on vision and strategy (+2)
3) Competitive (+4)
Stage 4: Motivate
1) Disaster Scenario Video (+1)
2) Departmental Liaison Team (+2)
Stage 5: Communicate the Vision
1) Constant repetition of vision. (+0)
2) Core Change Team presentations (+4)
3) Large group intervention (+0)
4) Outline changes and challenges (+1)
Stage 6: Act
1) Restructure Company Into Teams (+1)
2) Cost Rationalization (+3)
3) Teams Training (+0)
4) New Product Development Team (+1)
Stage 7: Consolidate
1) Publicize Team Successes. (+4)
2) Competitive and Financial (+0)
3) Reward Individual Efforts (+1)
4) Celebrate Successes. (+3)
Summary of evaluated implementation:
Leadership Score: 842/1000
Budget: 96% ($18,500 left)
Time: 90% Used (7.5 Weeks left)
Important Notes:
Constant Repetition of Vision: this should have been used slightly later, after the Core Change Team Presentations.
Large Group Intervention: this tactic shouldn’t have been used at all as it is very costly and ineffective given the current goals.
Teams Training: This should have been implemented after the teams were actually created; poor planning.
Competitive and financial: This tactic should have been used much earlier as it could help formulate the strategy as well as create a sense of motivation for managers.
Conclusion
Change Management Simulation Assignment
Group #4:
Timur Khamitov (995666989)
Kevieon Barker (995420343)
Tarek El Saad (994959265)
Division of Labour
We have divided up the entire work load into five main stages, with the following break-down:
Analyze: For this part of the report, firstly, each group member studied the case as well as the change primer to get a detailed understanding of the problem at hand.
Secondly, each group member has spent time with the game, experimenting with the tactics and their consequences.
A key aspect of this component is conducting interviews of the Management.
The list of departments interviewed was split up based on the following break-down: …show more content…
Tarek: Administration Department
Kevieon: Marketing
Timur: Manufacturing, R&D
Plan list of adequate tactics
Tarek: Summarize the change primer with additional notes.
Timur: roughly break down the list of all available tactics into the 7 stages outlined in the primer.
Implement tactics
Kevieon: enter the available tactics into the game in various order.
Evaluate tactics used
Collective activity, group discussion of tactics used
Interviews
Administration
Maurice Gagnon - CEO
· Very worried about present managerial state
· Need a leader
· Not happy with Brian
· Thinking about coming out of retirement
· Company changed a lot since Brian took over
· Company may have grown too much
· Likes Brians cost containment initiatives
· Market has changed
· Company should be doing better
· Company has great resources
· Bit performing as well as competitors
· Need action and results
· There should be two divisions 1:military , 2: commercial
· Not happy
· Problem is Rob Brown is a problem, thinks problems wouldn’t be around if union and Rob weren’t around
Brian Johnson – President
· Company is largely result of his ideas
· Feels like has failed because has to bring in consultant
· Exceptional departmental strength and cutting edge R&D, high quality manufacturing, decent marketing department
· Occasional communication breakdown “when this happens, all hell breaks loose”. Occurs a lot
· No need for organizational shake up, cant afford it
· Creating ad hoc or semi-permanent cross-functional teams
· Bad communication between departments need to “break down walls”
· Team approach will help communication problems
· Wants people to know how serious situation is
· Union and Robert brown a problem
· Jennifer smith good ally and great supporter
· Will not leave company in crisis
Jennifer Smith – VP Tech
· Job is to integrate the efforts of R&D, Marketing and manufacturing
· Create new good products fast
· Has been dealing with a lot of mediation between departments
· New employee who has experience to give R&D a commercial orientation
· Cross functional teams are critical
· R&D desiging what manufacturing cant build and what customers don’t want. (problem with R&D)
· Department structures are very isolated
· Need to get people to communicate more and problem solve together
· Company needs restructuring
· A lot of tension between management
· Brian not fond of Robert Brown.
· R&D and Marketing hate each other not communicating
Guy Tremblay - VP Human resources
· Likes the ideas of teams
· Big changes
· A lot of stress
· Need fresh perspective
· Energy channeled into conflict
· No vision or support to implement vision
· Mature workforce. No need for training
· Brian Johnson and rob brown don’t get along
· No one person is barrier to change.
· Need a group of people to lead change
· Integrated Teams, matrix structure
Ann Price - Personnel Manager
· Responsible for overseeing all human resource functions
· Responsible for organizing training
· Has a lot of responsibilities. Overworked
· Not supportive of outsourcing training
· Believes training is important
· Cuts in funding to human resources lead to low morale and cuts in participation for training
· Commercial focus has not reached lower level workers
· Lower level workers are in the dark
· Communication gap between upper management and low level employees
· Moral big problem
· Bring low level employees into decision making process.
· Attitude in the organization that training is not needed. Not good
· Need to build competent and committed workforce if going to succeed
Cheryl Stewart - VP Finance
· Feels that military contracts offer more
· Military contracts encourage R&D
· Many problems in company
· R&D and marketing not communicating
· Manufacturing failed to address cost issue
· Banks hesitant to finance company
· Only recently has finance department gotten attention
· At current cost and production levels company will be out of business in 18 months
Fred Williams - Account Manager
· Problem is lack of information systems
· Don’t share information
· Believes should get MIS
· Need to go commercial
· Influential people: Scott Bell, Brian Johnson and Jennifer Smith
· Company had to make budget cuts
· Budget cuts positive thing
MARKETING
Cathy Lalonde – VP Marketing
· First priority – reorganize marketing along product lines
· Long run goal - Meeting demands of the market
· Less on fine tuning and more on developing user friendly consumer demands
· Hiring young sales people
· Recognize commercial market is the future
· Create technologies for the commercial market
· Claims that Scott Bell is a biggest obstacle to change o He’s old school and not used to the new commercial approach o Focuses too much on the big ‘R’ of research and not enough of development
John Simmons – Marketing Coordinator
· Communicate new market information and opportunities
· Think we communicate well, but not well within and between departments
· Good idea to bring people together and get them talking
· Responsibilities: o Provide market support to commercial and military groups o Coordination of resources for marketing activities o Look for new business opportunities
· Thinks growth is going to be found in the commercial market.
· Thinks marketing in the firm is good
· Brian Johnson made a good decision in hiring Catherine Lalonde because of her ability to think into the future
· Thinks R&B needs a lot of work o A conflict between military and commercial groups
· Think the military market does not have much growth left, but the commercial market has room for potential growth
· Thinks Roger realizes the limited growth in the military market and offers excellent experience for young talent in the firm
· Thinks Sam Seto’s ambitious and agile characteristics are crucial to success in the commercial market
Roger Thomas – Military Contracts
· “The Old Guy”
· Thinks that the sales force is young and inexperienced, but believes that Lalonde brought everyone on board for a reason.
· States that the market for military contracts have dried up. Recognizes not much more room for development in military products.
· R&D used to deal with customers directly, but now, the roles have reversed and marketing deal with customers and relay the information to R&D. And believes that R&B has problems adjusting to role reversals.
· Problem – R&D does NOT listen to marketing
· Solution – Scott Bell needs a “kick in the ass” because if he won’t listen to changes, no-one in the R&B department will listen.
· Think Catherine is doing an admirable job
· Thinks time is running out for him since he is no longer the ‘big gun’
Manufacturing
Richard Wright – VP Manufacturing
· Praises Scott Bell for being a smart guy but criticizes Catherine Lalonde for having a “know it all” attitude.
· Claims the manufacturing department’s attention to detail is one of the firm’s competitive strengths
· Against the use of formal teams since he thinks that things are already running ‘smoothly’
· Problem: o Thinks the company lost focus o Believes that a focus on military contracts is the way to go
· Conflicts with Rob Brown (Rob and Brian don’t get along)
· Union o Feels that workers believe that the union is the only way to preserve jobs
· Against the marketing department’s approach to appeal to customers
· Solution o Focus less on a customer appeal approach o Focus more on military contracts
Ralphy Jones – Shop Supervisor
· Problem o Conflict between R&B and Marketing departments
· Opposes the use of teams because “people like the routine”.
· Thinks that the union shop is trouble free
· Believes that Rob Brown ‘stirred things up’ by causing job insecurity, but believes that he has the workers best interest at heart
· States that worker morale is low and affect job performance
Jane Crown- Quality Assurance
It’s her job to maintain the quality of the products that GlobalTech is known for.
Feels that manufacturing department isn’t ready for commercial operations.
The increasing product variation is slowing manufacturing down. Need to re-organize manufacturing.
Initially, they only produced a handful of systems, quality was easy to maintain. Then became harder, in a meeting of the heads of depts. R&D was requested to make manufacturing easier.
Durability is the key quality standard.
They try to apply their same strict standards as military to commercial products.
Two more inspection centres needed.
With the current product mix her stations are over-crowded and over worked.
Important feedback loop with R&D on products and defects etc.
Rob Brown- Union Representative
· Thinks the union has done great things for the company, increased wages etc.
· Recently, he feels that job security is a problem. People are worried.
· NAFTA and other trade agreements are the problem; cause for decreased military contracts.
· The solution is to get rid of NAFTA (Politically) and within the company; be prepared to make concessions.
· Diverse workforce at GlobalTech both ethnically and skill set wise. Union covers everyone.
· Argues that Brian Johnson is rarely around. Jennifer Smith is taking up a lot of the slack.
· Personal dislike towards Maurice Gagnon, partly because Brown formed the union to get ride of Gagnon's old school tactics.
· Brown gets along with VP of HR Guy Tremblay pretty well. Upcoming round of negotiations will be tough- Brown has full support of membership and is ready to strike, if …show more content…
needed.
Research and Development
Scott Bell- VP Research and Development
· Likes pushing the limits of technology. He is really proud of work that they do; his department has over a dozen patents, 4 of which are his.
· Department operates as teams. (Slight bitterness towards Marketing Department who isn’t marketing as well as he thinks they should).
· Unhappy about management cutting the R&D budget by 30%. He argues that its their only competitive advantage.
· Thinks the management is a problem. Before Johnson ‘blew up’ ideas were passed out around. Nowadays, not much exchange of ideas. Cross functional teams wont work according to him.
· Situation isn’t as bad as it seems. Some people holding company back, once their gone and things will get fixed.
· He isn’t too happy with where its going or the leader of change; Jennifer Smith. Excellence in research is most important for him.
· Claims that GlobalTech’s most valuable asset is their technological advantage.
Ganesh Seth- Technology Manager
He is responsible for allocating resources to requests of scientists.
Good relations with Scott Bell, working on projects with him. Feels he has done much good for R&D dept.
The problem is a leadership one. And cutting the budget for the R&D department.
Really bad time to cut budget. They are on verge of exciting discovery.
They are supreme in military products, not in commercial. Either way, technology is superior, just not getting marketed right.
Some long term projects have been cut due to budget cuts.
James Clarke (commercial manager) is working hard as well as allocation of many top scientists.
Seanna Grey- Military Manager
She is the military manager.
Less resources but capacity doubled (military and commercial now).
Marketing Department is getting more money but sales are falling.
She feels that the R&D is the core of globaltech as they are the reason for their technological competitive edge.
The solution is to focus on military products again.
Some of her best workers are at the commercial department. Animosity between the two.
Breakthrough in military technology is coming up. Should be key to survival due to high demand.
GlobalTech is her home. She has done a lot for the company.
James Clarke- Commercial Manager
His role is to impose marketing’s product requirements into their products.
He is trying to increase co-operation between R&D and marketing.
He is facing problems getting resource allocation for his commercial products.
R&D department is too research focused.
The problem is the switch of focus of the R&D department.
There is not enough resources/money and military products get priority.
Teams are needed, but difficult to implement.
Scott is a good scientist, but bad manager.
Summary: The R&D began as the most important department, who developed all the key technology that made GlobalTech a leader in military GPS set-up. As the number of military contracts has been falling, the R&D department is getting less and less resources due to 2 main reasons: 1) Falling revenues 2) Creation of commercial products. James Clarke is put in place to maintain good ties with Marketing who set the agenda in regards to what commercial products need to be created. Scott Bell and Seanna Grey are heavy pro-military supporters who have been around GlobalTech since the beginning.
Assessment of Tactics
Break Down of Tactics by Stage
1. Understand the need for change.
Benchmarking.
Employee Interviews
Focus group interviews.
Identify problem.
Stakeholder mapping.
Suggestion program.
2. Enlist a core change team.
Appoint Core Change Team
Hire a lobbyist.
Identify Change Agent.
New product development team.
Team Pilot Project
3. Envisage. Develop a vision and strategy.
Briefing on vision and strategy.
Competitive and financial.
Develop vision and strategy.
Team Mentoring.
Team site visits.
4. Motivate. Create a sense of urgency.
Constant repetition of urgency.
Disaster Scenario Video.
Reward individual efforts.
5. Communicate the vision.
CEO gives upbeat speech.
Core Change Team Presentations.
Departmental Q&A session.
Large group intervention.
Outline changes and challenges.
Professional Objectives.
Reassuring announcement.
Set new commercial targets.
Teams Training
6. Act. Take action.
Cost rationalization
Departmental Liaison Team
Develop Training Infrastructure.
Downsize company.
Financial.
Fire an individual.
ISO 9000 Certification.
Management Information Systems
Product improvement team.
Quality improvement seminar.
Reengineer company.
Restructure company into teams.
Restructure compensation.
Review Structure.
7. Consolidate gains.
Celebrate Success
Publicize Team Successes.
Primary Implementation/Evaluation
Tactics Used for First Successful Victory:
Based on our preliminary plan and our first success, the tactics employed are described below. Unsuccesfully implemented tactics are underlined and discussed below.
1. Outline Changes and Challenges (+0)
2. Focus Group Interviews (+2)
3. Employees Interviews (+4)
4. Identify Problem (+4)
5. Identify Change Agent (+2)
6. Stakeholder Mapping (+5)
7. Appoint Core Change Team (+3)
8. Fire an Individual (-3)
9. Develop Vision and Strategy (+5)
10. Briefing on Vision and Strategy (+1)
11. Benchmarking (+1)
12. Competitive and Financial (+1)
13. Competitive (+5)
14. Financial (+4)
15. Departmental Q&A Sessions (+3)
16. Disaster Scenario Video (+2)
17. Constant Repetition of Vision (+0)
18. Core Change Team Presentation (+2)
19. Teams Training (+3)
20. Develop Training Infrastructure (+1)
21. Departmental Liaison Team (+2)
22. Team Pilot Project (+0)
23. New Product Development Team (+1)
24. Product Improvement Team (+0)
25. Quality Improvement Seminar (-3)
26. Team Mentoring (+3)
27. Restructure Compensation (+2)
28. Team Site Visits (+0)
29. Publicize Team Successes (+4)
Summary
Outcome: 60% Buy-In
Leadership score: 820/1000
Budget: 100% Used
Time: 97% Used (2 weeks left)
Important Notes
Benchmarking should have been done at an earlier stage of the change theory. Ideally, it should have been implemented in Stage 1 where you understand the need for change. Doing this will help managers first understand the need for change and build a strong strategy.
Outline Changes and Challenges would have been more effective if utilized at Stage 5 at the communication phase of the change theory.
Implementing it as our first tactic was not very effective.
Identfy Change Agent would have been more effective if implemented immediately after stakeholder mapping. Also, choosing Jennifer Smith would have been more effective since she possesses all four characteristics of a good leader.
Quality Improvement Seminar appeared to be harmless but decreased "buy in" by 3%. The seminar appeared to confuse workers and could be left out in future approaches.
Fire an Individual also decreased "buy in" by 3%. Instead of implementing this tactic at the stage where we created a "change team", we might have benefitted more if implementing this tactic at the last stage of the change theory where we consolidate gains. Doing this would help the company in moving forward since Scott Bell proved to be a resister in the R&D department.
Positives:
Building a training system before organizing teams
Publicizing team successes at the last stage of the Change Theory
Secondary Implementation/Evaluation
Stage 1: Need for Change
1) Focus Group Interviews
(+2)
2) Benchmarking (+3)
3) Employee Interviews (+4)
4) Identify Problem (+4)
Stage 2: Enlist a core Change Team
1) Stakeholder mapping (+5)
2) Appoint a core change team (+3)
3) Identify change agent (+3)
Stage 3: Envisage
1) Develop vision and strategy (+5)
2) Briefing on vision and strategy (+2)
3) Competitive (+4)
Stage 4: Motivate
1) Disaster Scenario Video (+1)
2) Departmental Liaison Team (+2)
Stage 5: Communicate the Vision
1) Constant repetition of vision. (+0)
2) Core Change Team presentations (+4)
3) Large group intervention (+0)
4) Outline changes and challenges (+1)
Stage 6: Act
1) Restructure Company Into Teams (+1)
2) Cost Rationalization (+3)
3) Teams Training (+0)
4) New Product Development Team (+1)
Stage 7: Consolidate
1) Publicize Team Successes. (+4)
2) Competitive and Financial (+0)
3) Reward Individual Efforts (+1)
4) Celebrate Successes. (+3)
Summary of evaluated implementation:
Leadership Score: 842/1000
Budget: 96% ($18,500 left)
Time: 90% Used (7.5 Weeks left)
Important Notes:
Constant Repetition of Vision: this should have been used slightly later, after the Core Change Team Presentations.
Large Group Intervention: this tactic shouldn’t have been used at all as it is very costly and ineffective given the current goals.
Teams Training: This should have been implemented after the teams were actually created; poor planning.
Competitive and financial: This tactic should have been used much earlier as it could help formulate the strategy as well as create a sense of motivation for managers.
Conclusion