The document discusses organizational transformation at Houston Community College. It describes research and input gathered from stakeholders to inform the transformation process. This included organizational studies, community input, and data from students, faculty, and staff. The transformation process involved broad engagement of administrators, faculty, staff, and students. It established a vision for HCC to be a leader in high-quality, innovative education leading to student success. The transformation will shift HCC's focus to centers of excellence and innovation while increasing efficiency, interconnectivity, responsiveness, and alignment. This will involve creating academic institutes of excellence across the college system.

1. Organizational Transformation
2.0
Houston Community College

2. Transformation Mosaic

3. SITUATIONAL AWARENESS
Leadership
3

6. How Twitter Users Can
Generate Better Ideas
Thriving in an Increasingly
Digital Ecosystem
IsYour Business Ready for
a Digital Future
MIT Sloan Management Review

7. Organizational Lifecycle
Survival
Good Management
Good to Great Leadership

8. PARADIGM SHIFTS
Changing Environment
8

16. Music paradigms
16
Quality
Capacity
Lower Cost

17. Digital Equipment Corporation
PARADIGM PARALYSIS
17

18. DEC as Technology Leader
You have probably never heard of it! BUT its remnants are in most of today’s technology
Source: http://web.archive.org/web/20021121125840/ http://www.falvey.org/hot_neg_ch3.shtml
• First interac0ve mini-computer opera0ng system VMS.
• Invented LAN-Ethernet std (DECnet).
• First rela0onal database (RDB, ISAM)
• First email soMware (DECmail)
• First Digital Linear Tape (DLT) drive
• 16 bit (1968), 32 bit (1976), 64 bit (1992)
• Computers with 99% up0me
• 1989 2nd only to IBM as WORLD’s largest computer company

19. Demise of DEC
Ken Olsen, president –
“There is no reason for any individual to want a
computer at home … Business wants computers
with 100% up0me.” (1977)

20. Source: IEEE Spectrum July 1992

21. Demise of DEC
it soon became clear that the next genera0on
(processors) …Berkeley RISC and Stanford designs
would outperform the fastest members of the
VAX family, DEC's cash cow.
Constrained by the huge success of their VAX/
VMS products, they faltered
DEC -> Compaq…HP

22. Cardelli
OpSys Semantics - MSFT
Research
deCastro
Unix - Data General, Alumni
Cutler
VMS - MSFT - WNT - XP(64),
XBox
Gray
RDB - MSFT Research
Lamport
Print Drivers - MSFT
Gettys
X-11 Interface - HP Research
Burrows
Altavista - Google
DEC Creative Capital

23. DEC Force Field Diagram
USER FRIENDLY
LOW COST
ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
DESKTOP AVAILABILITY CENTRAL PROCESSING
SPECIAL SKILLS
100% UPTIME
MORE TECHNOLOGY
DRIVING FORCES RESTRAINING FORCES
SMALLER APPS
NON-TECH APPLICATIONS
INTEGRATED APPS
ERODING CAUSE-EFFECT LOOP
TALENT LOSS <=> INFLEXIBLE CORP. CULTURE
PURITANISM (ENGINEERING)
TALENT/IDEAS DEEP-ROOTED CULTURE

24. Organizational Lifecycle
Survival
Transform
Change (Good to Great)

25. The Birth of Silicone Valley
Shockley kept changing objectives and products.
Shockley – control knowledge, transistors to big corp
Noyce – share knowledge, transistors in every home.
William Shockley
1956 Nobel physics
Shockley
Semiconductor
Victor Grinich
Jay Last
C.S. Roberts
Gene Kleiner
Gordon Moore
Julius Blank
Jean Hoerni
Robert Noyce
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
Robert Noyce

26. Robert Noyce
It is not enough to simply say our objective is to grow and
make profit – everyone is trying to do that …
I’d rather develop something that noone has done yet.
Robert Noyce
Grinnell College Alumni
Gary Cooper – Actor
Herbie Hancock – Musician
Robert Noyce – Founder Fairchild, Intel
Walter Koeing – Actor (Chekov)
Peter Coyote – Actor, screenwriter
John Garang – President of South Sudan
Thomas Cech – Nobel Prize Chemistry

27. Shockley
Fairchild
Intel
Team Lifecycle

28. Organizational Lifecycle
Survival
Transform
Change (Good to Great)

29. ORGANIZATIONAL RECON
HCC Situational Awareness
29

30. 30
Innovative 1%
Hierarchy 59%
Market 20%
Parochial 20%
Cultural Assessment

31. 31
Management 52%
Procedures 19%
HR Practices 15%
Finances 5%
IT 4%
Other 6%
Performance Barriers

32. Organizational Diagnostic
32
Realignment
Pockets of strength, feels successful
Start-up
Much activity, focus on excellence
1. Low need for change
2. Low urgency (believes it is good)
3. High resistance (uncertainty)
1. High Change (newness driven)
2. High urgency (looking for wins)
3. High resistance (excellence)
Sustaining Success
Strong team, is successful
Turnaround
Isolated successes, stagnant
1. Low need for change (use existing
model of success)
2. Low urgency (already good)
3. Low resistance (confident)
1. High change (needs driven)
2. High urgency (looking for wins)
3. Resistance Low (seeking direction)
URGENCY
RESISTANCE
HIGH
HIGH
LOW
LOW

33. Customer (Student) Service?

35. TRANSFORMATION
Change
35

36. Time (years)
Stakeholder
Value
($)
Long-Term Growth in
Stakeholder Value
Good
Citizen
Product
Innovation
Customer
Management
Operational
Effectiveness
Short-wave
Long-wave
Mid-wave
12-18 months 12-36 months 24-54 months
Customer
Management
Processes
Operations
Management
Processes
Innovation
Processes
Regulatory
and Social
Processes
1 2 3 4 5

37. Think …

38. Think … comments?
• Not broken? - always something to be done (Sam
Palmisano, CEO IBM Corp.)
• Row boat mentality (Sir Howard Stringer, CEO Sony Corp.)
• Heart ajacks vs. cancer (Fareeed Zakaria, journalist)
• Informa0on empowers distributed decision making
(Prof. Thomas Malone, MIT Sloan School)
• Tech can’t make our decisions for us
(HMK Abdullah II ibn Al Hussein)

39. Eight Steps to Transformation
1
Establish a Sense of Urgency
o Examine market and competitive realities
o Identify potential crises, challenges
2
Form Guiding Coalition
o Commission influential group
o Build a team environment
3
Create a Vision
o Clarify a shared direction
o Develop strategy to achieve vision
4
Communicate the Vision
o Use multiple channels
o Teach new behaviors for teaming
5
Empower Others to Act
o Remove obstacles to change
o Align org structures thru evolution
6
Plan for Short Term Wins
o Have visible improvements
o Communicate the wins
7
Consolidate Improvements
o Embed new culture in policies, practice
o Expand change for further alignment
8
Institutionalize the HCC Way
o Link success to the HCC Way
o Develop new leaders
Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail, John P. Kotter, 2007.

40. Transformation Timeline
G65 Retreat
Organizational Identity
(Nov 7)
Faculty Senate
Org Identity ( Nov 14)
G65
Building on Strategy
Session
(Nov 24)
Oct AprMarFebJanDecNovSept
2014 2015
May Jun Jul
Board Retreat
Vision Statement
(Dec 6)
Board Retreat
Transformation Presentation
(Dec 11)
G65
Defining Centers of
Excellence (Dec 18)
G65
President Pitch
For COE (Jan 26)
G65
Org Structure (Mar 5)
G65
President Pro.
Business Canvass
(Jul 1)
State of the College
COE Unveil (Apr 13)
All College Day
COE Unveil (Apr 10)
Presidents/Deans/
Directors/G65
Transformation
Org Structure ( Apr 5)
G65
MBTI (Jul 30)
G65
Team Building/
Business Model
(31)
Chat w/ Chancellor
All Campuses
Feedback Sessions (Apr 20-24)
Student Advisory
Feedback Session (Apr 24)
G31
Charge to G13
Org Structure (Mar 5)
Organizational
Assessments
(Sept – Oct)

41. “It is generally much easier to kill an
organization than change it substantially.”
Kevin Kelly, Out of Control, 1994
Kevin Kelly, Out of Control
Note

42. MATRIX
Flexibility
42

43. Matrix Forms
•Employee efforts limited
to func0onal groups
•Parochial priori0es,
values and mission
Functional
Matrix
Balanced
Matrix
Project
Matrix
•Parochial priorities,
values and mission
•Employees move
between functionals
and groups
•Employee members
of multiple groups
•Groups strive for
balance focusing on
universal mission
•Functional leaders
define staffing and
ops details within
system guideline

44. Matrix Properties
• Leverage functional economies
of scale while remaining task-
focused
• Focus employees on multiple
business goals
• Improves district-wide focus
• Information flow increase
through lateral channels
• Distributes decision-making
WEAKNESSES
• Decouples authority and
responsibility
• Decouples single strand
vertical chain
• Creates ambiguity
• Likely increases resistance due
to perceived loss of status,
authority
Sy, Thomas. Challenges and Strategies of Matrix Organizations: Top Level and Mid-Level Manager’s perspectives. Human Resource
Planning, 28.1 (access from BoozAllen.com)
STRENGTH

45. Challenges to Managing in a Matrix
Top 5 Challenges Iden0fied
0
25
50
75
100
Misaligned Goals Ambiguous Authority Silo-Focused Employees
Mid-Level Mgr Top-Level Mgr
MISALIGNED UNCLEAR AMBIGUOUS LACK OF SILO-FOCUSED
GOALS ROLES AUTHORITY GUARDIAN EMPLOYEES

46. HOUSTON COMMUNITY COLLEGE
Transformation 1.0
46

47. INPUT FROM STAKEHOLDERS
HIGHLIGHTSResearch Highlights:
9 Trustees
13 Executive Team Members
63 Whole System Planning Participants
4,275 Students
3,262 Faculty/Staff
751 Community Members

48. DATA COLLECTION
HIGHLIGHTS2. Studies and Research to Inform the Process
Organizational Identity Study
Community Value Study
Student Research
Urgency Assessment
Task Inventory
Organizational Health Study

49. TRANSFORMATION
BROAD ENGAGEMENT
(ADMIN, FACULTY, STAFF, STUDENTS)
1. Research -- Analysis and Application
2. Workgroup Development (board vision; interdisciplinary
team; leadership)
3. Whole System Planning
4. Visioning Workshop
5. Organizational Alignment – Values & Competencies
6. Strategy Mapping
7. Vision Agreement Session (board)
8. Transformation Plan to Achieve Vision

50. WHAT DID WE LEARN?

51. 1. The need to leverage our size and resources.
2. The need for a clear vision.
3. The need to eliminate inefficiencies.
4. The need to align priorities across the system.
5. The need to create opportunities.
RESEARCH FINDINGS

52. Identity

53. Purpose

54. Positivity

55. Vision

56. HCC Vision
HCC will be a leader in providing high
quality, innovative education leading to student success
and completion of workforce and academic programs.
We will be responsive to community
needs and drive economic development
in the communities we serve.

57. HCC’S BUSINESS MODEL
• A more efficient college.
• A more interconnected college.
• A more responsive college.
• A more aligned college.
• A more innovative college.
• A more successful student and graduate.
TOMORROW

58. FOCUS
We cannot afford to invest in the
highest levels of all the same things at
each of our colleges – it is costly and
inefficient.
We must shift our focus to one of
excellence and innovation.
This requires us to rethink and share
in new and different ways.
ORGANIZATIONAL SHIFT

59. EXCELLENCE
We will focus our resources,
talents and attention on high
demand areas that provide
the greatest return for our
students, community,
industry as well as the college.
ACHIEVING EXCELLENCE

60. Centering Excellence &
Connecting Community
Conceptual View

62. Creation of System-wide Academic Institute of
Excellence:
• Efficient scheduling of course sections
• Increased course availability in response to
student demand
• More collaborative approach to faculty
development
• Time for College Administration to focus on
student experience and Institutes of Excellence
ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE

63. CURRENT
• Diffused focus on
instructional delivery
• Operational culture
• Broad approach to marketing
& outreach
• Limited alignment with
industry demands
FUTURE
• Laser-focused leadership for
institutes of excellence
• Innovative culture
• Strategic approach to
marketing and outreach
• Align instructional programs
with industry demands
ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN

64. Organizational Transformation
2.0
Houston Community College