Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Case study nidasha


Published on

case study on management of change

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Case study nidasha

  2. 2. •To make recommendations for managing organizationalchange.•To analyze the change programme from the perspectiveof one group of affected individuals, employees of PublicHealth Laboratory Service.•To make observation about validity of existing changemanagement models.
  3. 3. PROPOSED DOCUMENT The Chief Medical Officer (CMO) for England produced a strategy for Combating Infectious Disease, Getting Ahead of the Curve, in January 2002.BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
  4. 4. OF PROPOSED DOCUMENTTo produce a unified, multidisciplinary response to health protection issues.
  5. 5. That had to take place in order to implement the proposed documentPHLS would be disbanded and its network of over 40 laboratories brokenup, with most laboratories being transferred to the management of NHSTrusts.The surveillance and specialist/reference laboratory functions and theremainder of the network would transfer to the newly created HealthProtection Agency(HPA), together with the National RadiologicalProtection Board (NRPB),Microbiological Research Authority (MRA) andothers from within the NHS and elsewhere.Approximately 5,000 employees would be affected by the proposals.
  6. 6. The affected organization and the trades unions, presented difficulties from the moment the document was published. The PHLS Board argued that the pace of proposed change was too fast, posed a potential risk to public health, and that many of the proposals lacked clarity resulting in potentially damaging confusion. The NRPB challenged the rationale for their inclusion in the new HPA,Resistance suggesting that a key strength was their recognised independence which couldoffered to be lost if subsumed into the new organisation.change…..
  7. 7. Considerable press coverage (e.g. articles in The Times on 9 September 2002, the Daily Express on 5 July 2002 and the Health Service Journal on 15 August 2002) questioned the wisdom of the proposals for breaking up the PHLS laboratory network. The Head of the US Centres for Disease Control in Atlanta also questioned theResistance approach to the laboratory network, suggesting that the UK was planning tooffered to break up what the US was trying to create.change…..
  8. 8. Facilitating cues…There was, however, broad support for theoverall objectives of the strategy from theBoard of Director’s of PHLS and NRPB.The strategy would bring together the publichealth response to biological, radiologicaland chemical threats under one body for thefirst time.Also the transfer of PHLS laboratories to theNHS had support if handled in a timelyfashion.
  9. 9. IMPLEMENTINGThe Department of Health published a consultationdocument in to establish HPA in the following two stages:(1) as a Special Health Authority (SHA)(2) as an Executive Non Departmental Body (NDPB)A particular consequence of this decision was that thePHLS would remain in existence until primarylegislation was passed to abolish it.Also, because the PHLS could not remain on the statutebook as a moribund organisation it had to retain afunction and a Board of Directors.
  10. 10. ANALYSIS OF CHANGE MANAGEMENT FROM THE VIEW POINT OF PEOPLE AFFECTED 50% of respondents identified the short timescale as having an adverse impact on the process; there was a perceived rush to get things in place before the HPA was established. Conversely, in some respects the process had actually been 1. TIMESCALE too slow and had caused these problems.
  11. 11. In response to questions concerning2. INFORMATION communication the majority felt well informed about the changes. However, less than half felt that they had been well informed about the reasons for the changes, agreeing that information needs to be presented in a way that is relevant to all levels within the organisation. The project management structure involved a steering group, a project team and detailed work streams but this was not well understood. 50% of those interviewed commented on poor project management which supports conclusions that theremoteness of change leaders in many 3. PROJECTpublic sector change programmes can present problems. MANAGEMENT
  12. 12. 4. INVOLVEMENT & CONSULTATION The directive nature of the process, with only those in privileged positions (25%) feeling they had any real involvement in shaping the way the changes were taken forward, was an issue. Also whilst the formal process of consultation with trades unions was acknowledged, this appeared to have little impact at local level.
  14. 14. Lewin’s change Change events: establishing the HPA model (1951) and transferring PHLS laboratories to the NHSUnfreezing Dismantle the PHLS Disestablish the NRPB and MRA Remove some health protection activities from parts of the NHS Remove some aspects of chemical hazard response from a number of university departmentsMovement Transfer some PHLS laboratories to the NHS Transfer the remainder of the PHLS to the HPA Transfer all the assets of the NRPB and MRA to the HPA Transfer staff and some assets from parts of the NHS and some universities to the HPARefreezing All movements to be completed by 1 April 2003 Combine all the functions transferred to the HPA into a coherent single organisation delivering high quality health protection services Integrate the PHLS laboratories, transferring to the NHS into the local NHS, pathology service