Change Management – A success story in a government organization.
Ashutosh Pandey, R.T.Sundari
Any change initiative is to...
In a government R&D organization, as is well-known, the software development activities are
significantly different from t...
The 8 steps in this model are:
1. Increase the urgency for change.
2. Build a team dedicated to change.
3. Create the visi...
To meet challenges in implementation of CM, such an organization need to focus on changes in
following areas:
Organization...
During data collection and internal audits we came to know that the project documents like
designing, review reports were ...
Fig 2: Matrix based structure
Initially, the changes made in the structure did not go well in between the groups. There ha...
Customer Satisfaction Index in Project based Structure
Projects Availability
of Build on
Production
Documen
tation
Defect
...
Implementation Cost in Project based Structure Per Process
Projects Size (No.
of
Processes)
Re-
Usable
Compone
nts
Rework
...
4. Change Management Masterclass: A Step-By-Step Guide to Successful Change Management, by
Mike Green, Published August 28...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Rt sundari ashutosh_pandey

132

Published on

Published in: Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
132
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "Rt sundari ashutosh_pandey"

  1. 1. Change Management – A success story in a government organization. Ashutosh Pandey, R.T.Sundari Any change initiative is to steer the organization away from where it’s currently headed to an enhanced and improved future. Mostly we find the change process and improvement programs often “fail” due to improper understanding of corporate strategic objectives and processes are not aligned with business imperatives. The successful change will depend upon the collective power of change initiatives, having sufficient impact on the targeted driving forces, thereby altering the course of the organization. To have appropriate infrastructure in place will certainly support the ‘mechanics’ of change. This means having effective organizational structure, project management office (PMO), clear roles and responsibilities, plans, communications and measurement. For improving the future course of activities it is also essential to nurture the individual competencies to build the organizational capabilities. In this paper we discuss about the changes made in the organization having project based structure to matrix structure of different functions with project base. The change initiatives are then measured with leading indicators like cost, revenue, technology implementation and quality of deliverables. With above orientation of change management the organization was able achieve the milestones leading towards processes and performance improvement. It has also resulted in the client and employee satisfaction. Key words: Change Management, Organizational structure, Matrix structure 1. Introduction The concept of "change management" is a familiar one in most businesses today. Any change initiative is to steer the organization away from where it’s currently headed to an enhanced and improved future. But, how businesses manage change and how successful they are at it varies a lot depending on the nature of the business, the change and the people involved. Organizational change is something that occurs throughout an organization’s life cycle. The effect of change occurs in the entire organization rather than one part of it. Change in the organization is required due to demand in the globalization, ever changing technology. Therefore it is necessary to understand the present needs and accordingly the change strategy to be implemented. Change management in this paper refers to organization-wide change, that is, change which affects all systems, structures and processes, as well as organizational culture. This holistic approach involves learning throughout the organization. 2. Challenges in the Government R&D organization.
  2. 2. In a government R&D organization, as is well-known, the software development activities are significantly different from those of other software development companies who develop the applications as per well defined customer requirements. In such a R&D unit, dealing with various mega software projects, the planning itself was more complex and specification changes during project implementation were frequent and inevitable. To begin any successful change process, you must first start by understanding why the change must take place. Implementing change management strategy is not easy in those organizations. CM has to find a fine balance of Organizational Structures, Cultural Acceptance, Procedures, Processes and the right degree of system support. It requires acceptance from the top management and support. Buy-in has to percolate from top to bottom. 3. Change Management Model Change Management in an organization is a result of influencing both internal and external factors. For example, the internal environment might be affected by following factors. Identification New/Large opportunities Improper work distribution among employees Performance gaps to to attain organization goals and objectives Introduction to New Processes/ Technologies Crisis- Financial or Resources Everyone has few theories about change management. While there are many change management models, most organization will choose at least one of the following three models to implement the strategy: 1. Lewin’s Change Management Model 2. McKinsey 7-S Model 3. Kotter’s 8 Step Change Model While each one of the models has its own advantages and disadvantages, one has to carefully analyse the model that best suit to his organization and its culture. Mostly we find the change process and improvement programs often “fail” due to improper understanding of corporate strategic objectives and processes are not aligned with business imperatives. The successful change will depend upon the collective power of change initiatives, having sufficient impact on the targeted driving forces, thereby altering the course of the organization. Organizational performance is core to its success. After careful analysis and evaluation of the suitability factors, Kotter’s 8 Step model was chosen to implement the CM.
  3. 3. The 8 steps in this model are: 1. Increase the urgency for change. 2. Build a team dedicated to change. 3. Create the vision for change. 4. Communicate the need for change. 5. Empower staff with the ability to change. 6. Create short term goals. 7. Stay persistent. 8. Make the change permanent. Significant advantages to this model are: - The process is an easy step-by-step - The focus is on preparing and accepting change, not the actual change. - Transition is easier. While implementing the CM, it is fore most important to evaluate various risks and financial implications in the organization. Following Cost & Risks were analyzed on both levels i.e. Project and organization. Costs Risks Project level Project delays Missed milestones Budget overruns Rework required on design Loss of work by project team Resistance – active and passive Project put on hold Resources not made available Obstacles appear unexpectedly Project fails to deliver results Project is fully abandoned Organizational level Productivity plunges (deep and sustained) Loss of valued employees Reduced quality of work Impact on customers Impact on suppliers Morale declines Legacy of failed change Stress, confusion, fatigue Change saturation If the change is not implemented Lost investment made in the project Lost opportunity to have invested in other projects Expenses not reduced Efficiencies not gained Revenue not increased Waste not reduced Regulations not met Table 1: Analysis of Cost and Risks-Organizational vs Project level 4. Implementation of Change Management in an R & D Government Organization:
  4. 4. To meet challenges in implementation of CM, such an organization need to focus on changes in following areas: Organization’s Mission and Vision…. by continuously monitoring its Mission i.e. purpose of its business, Vision i.e. what the Organization should look like and its competitive strategies. Working Mechanism can be changed by introducing new procedures, methods to attain better performance with available resources. Organizational Structure can be changed to be more responsive with external factors i.e. customers, market competitions etc. Structure can be changed inside the organization also to make life-cycle more effective. Human behavior and Organization Culture can be redefined by training to managers and employees for new knowledge and skills. Right-Sizing can be done to deal with financial crisis and best fit persons can be more utilized by increasing motivation and incentive schemes. C-DAC Noida center (a scientific society of Ministry of communication and IT) has been involved in R&D and application oriented design and development for various Government Clients. Over the decades, it has acquired competency, expertise and extensive experience in the areas of Health Informatics, Embedded Systems, Language Computing and e-Governance domains. The organization structure was built around these domain areas. Project teams were formed within these groups, who were responsible for design, development, testing and implementation which led to excessive coding and little importance given to knowledge sharing. Time lines for delivering the products were often missed. Team Members were not released to other teams where the requirement is priority. That resulted in excess man power deployment in each projects. Fig 1: Project base organizational structure
  5. 5. During data collection and internal audits we came to know that the project documents like designing, review reports were prepared after the activity of that phase is over. The very purpose of the documentation seems to have been defeated as the Project Leader and his team managed everything within their ambit. So keeping opportunities and challenges in mind, Centre evolved some internal changes in its functional structures. In order to create an urgency of the change, staffs are consulted for the change management plan. First step towards this was to identify the group which will implement the change. Software Engineering Process Group (SEPG) was formed with the representation from different technical groups. The next was empowering the SPEG so as to work without any hindrance. Putting people at the top of the agenda with planning for enhanced staff performance has become a key element of the Strategy. Accordingly, it was decided to change the organization structure by creating four groups’ viz. Design, Development, Testing and Implementation. Within this group projects were handled by different teams. Changing the whole structure from Project- Based to Metric Base was a great challenge for the organization. This has helped in pooling the skill and talent in a group with a clearly defined roles and responsibilities. Due to this structure, the documentation has become a must from other group before they start their work. Project Managers were from the Implementation group and they will be interacting with the customers for the requirements and finalizing the same with them. They prepare the System Requirement Document and forward to the Design Team for designing. The Design Team works on the High Level Design and Low Level Design and reviews the same with the proposed committee before releasing the Design document to the Development Group. After coding, the application was deployed in the test server and testing team work on them by testing the functionalities as per clients’ requirements. The common repository system was created by the Quality Assurance Group for easy handing of the documents from the various groups. The baseline documents were uploaded in project repository for the stakeholders to use. At the same time Project Manager can be able to monitor the activity with the help of common repository. The vertical functional group and horizontal project team of matrix helped to speed up the implementation.
  6. 6. Fig 2: Matrix based structure Initially, the changes made in the structure did not go well in between the groups. There have been barriers created between the groups leading to water tight compartments. No accountability was felt by Design, Development and Testing groups. As such, the Implementation team always faced the pressure from the clients. SEPG group has identified the Project Management Office (PMO) to co-ordinate with different groups. It tracks the timeline and progress of the project and gave a good support to implementation group. Weekly meetings were conducted by the PMO with the Team Leads of different groups. Targets were fixed during the meeting and issues between the groups were sorted out amicably. 5. Analyses about the result obtained due to CM Before introducing the Change in the organizational structure there was lot of rework in the projects. Similar modules/ functionalities developed by a number of projects but components developed under one project were not being re-used in other projects thus resulting in duplication of work and more effort. Same defects were noticed and experienced in different projects. Maintaining of the similar type of modules in all projects became difficult as each group or team was developing their modules independently. After six months of executing the new change in structure and functionalities, we have collected the data from different projects only to find very little improvement in the outcome. PMO began to closely monitor the project execution and the hi cups in the process and procedures were ironed out. After one year the improvement were felt. The following table of Customer Satisfaction was taken after one and half years. Here you see during the project based structure overall Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) was between 1 and 2 whereas the matrix based structure of CSI was reached 3.
  7. 7. Customer Satisfaction Index in Project based Structure Projects Availability of Build on Production Documen tation Defect Occurren ce Maintai nability Reliabil ity Perform ance Usabil ity Overall CSI (in Project Based) PGIMER 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 GNCTD 1 2 4 2 1 1 2 1 RIMS 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 SMS 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 Customer Satisfaction Index in Metric based Structure Projects Availability of Build on Production Documentat ion Defect Occurr ence Maintai nability Reliabil ity Perform ance Usabil ity CSI (in Metric Based) PGIMER 4 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 GNCTD 5 4 1 4 4 4 4 3 RIMS 5 3 2 4 4 4 5 3 SMS 3 3 1 4 4 3 3 3 Table 2 Customer Satisfaction Index Fig 3: Customer Satisfaction Index Another main benefit accrued was lowering of cost of implementation of projects. In Table 3 below for each project we have taken ‘Size’ (i.e No of processes in the project). Against size we have compared the re-usable components, rework, defects detected before delivery of the product and after delivery and redundancy percentage. From the result below we can see that after the changes in the process structure reworking has reduced due to no of re-usable components used in the projects. The defects rate after delivery was also declined while the defects rate before delivery was high. This means that testing was very effective. Overall the implementation cost of each project has been decreased in the matrix based structure. 0 1 2 3 4 Overall CSI (in Project Based) CSI (in Metric Based)
  8. 8. Implementation Cost in Project based Structure Per Process Projects Size (No. of Processes) Re- Usable Compone nts Rework (Man days) Defects detected before Delivery Defects detected after Delivery Redunda ncy % Cost of Product Developme nt (INR) Project Based Per Process Implement ation Cost (INR) PGIMER 728 45 340 2673 215 42 3899500.00 5356.46 GNCTD 446 14 225 1463 175 54 2495750.00 5595.85 RIMS 875 7 324 1225 227 62 3650500.00 4172.00 SMS 678 17 275 1900 122 38 3211750.00 4737.09 Per Process Implementation Cost in Metric based Structure Projects Size (No. of Processes) Re- Usable Compone nts Rework (Man days) Defects detected before Delivery Defects detected after Delivery Redunda ncy % Cost of Product Developme nt Per Process Implement ation Cost (INR) PGIMER 1625 124 201 3678 202 12 6310000.00 3883.08 GNCTD 1258 76 175 2458 124 6 4671000.00 3713.04 RIMS 986 49 115 2126 62 8 3715750.00 3768.51 SMS 625 29 121 1965 57 7 2743500.00 4389.60 Table 3: Implementation Cost per Process 6. Conclusion With above orientation of change management the organization was able achieve the milestones leading towards processes and performance improvement. It has also resulted in the client and employee satisfaction. Whatever change management strategy is used it should have holistic approach for better results. Comparison of the data between the two type structures shows that there is an average of 40% cost reduction due to the Change. The Change has Minimized Project Risks, Accelerating Project Benefits and Optimizing current & future processes and structures. Due to the customer satisfaction we have been able to get more projects of same type. References: 1. Project data: QMS, CDAC Noida 2. Kotter, John P., and Dan S. Cohen, The Heart of Change: Real-Life Stories of How People Change Their Organizations. Harvard Business Press, 2002. 3. Journal of Organizational Change Management, Professor Slawomir Magala, ISSN: 0953-4814
  9. 9. 4. Change Management Masterclass: A Step-By-Step Guide to Successful Change Management, by Mike Green, Published August 28th 2007 by Kogan Page 5. Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation by Tim Brown (Sep 29, 2009) 6. Organization Change: Theory and Practice (Foundations for Organizational Science series) by W. Warner Burke (Nov 29, 2010) 7. Management of Organizational Change: K Harigopal, SAGE, 14-Apr-2006 8. Change Management Strategies for an Effective EMR Implementation : Claire McCarthy,Douglas Eastman, HIMSS, 2010 9. Change Management 100 Success Secrets, by Gerard Blokdijk, 2008 10. Organizational and personal change management, process, plans, change management and business development tips- www.businessballs.com. 11. Change Management Consulting Case Study by Ryan Gunhold Mr. Ashutosh Pandey (B. Tech CSE, MS in Cyber Laws) has a total work experience of 7.5 years and a Project engineer in CDAC Noida for the past 5 years. He is also registered as ATM (Appraisal Team Member) in SEI (Software Engineering Institute) and helped CDAC Noida in attaining CMMI Level 3 in December 2008 and CMMI Level 5 in February 2011. He’s Also a Member of CSI. His research interest includes Object Oriented Software Engineering, Software Testing. He may be contacted in ashutoshpandey@cdac.in. R.T. Sundari (Consultant) has Post graduation in Management and 35 years experience in software designing, development and testing. She is currently heading the PMO(Project Management Office) and SEPG (Software Engineering Process Group) in addition to Quality Assurance division of CDAC, Nodia. She has been instrumental in attaining CMMi 5 and ISO 9001 Certifications for CDAC Noida. She has guided many national and international papers work. She may be contacted in sundari@cdac.in

×