Prescriptions for managing change: a survey of their effects in projects to implement collaborative working between organisations

  • Published on

  • View

  • Download

Embed Size (px)


  • Prescriptions for managing change: a survey of their eects inprojects to implement collaborative working between


    David Boddy*, Douglas Macbeth

    Department of Management Studies, University of Glasgow, 59 Southpark Avenue, Glasgow G12 8LF, UK

    Received 1 December 1998; received in revised form 31 March 1999; accepted 16 April 1999


    This paper reports on a quantitative study of 100 companies which had attempted to move towards a more collaborativerelationship with another organisation. Judged on criteria set out in the survey 46 had succeeded and 54 had failed in theirattempt to implement supply chain partnering. A questionnaire invited respondents to indicate which project management

    practices (drawn from a review of the change management literature) they had used. Statistical analyses showed that fourpractices accounted for most of the dierence between successful and unsuccessful implementation. These concerned projectgoals, resources, structures and controls. Many conventional change management prescriptions had no statistically significanteect on the outcome. The paper relates these results to theories of change management and draw the practical implications.

    These are likely to apply to many other types of change project. 7 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.

    Keywords: Collaborative working; Change management; Successful practices

    1. Change projects often fail to meet expectations

    Projects intended to implement significant changesin the way an organisation works seldom turn out asexpected. Some exceed expectations. Many others fallshort of their promoters intentions. Kearney [1] andthe Economist Intelligence Unit [2] found a high fail-ure rate when European companies adopted TotalQuality Management (TQM) systems. Hougham [3]and Boddy and Gunson [4] have shown how infor-mation technology projects can take longer and costmore to implement than was expectedas well as deli-vering substantial benefits. Wastell [5] concluded thatBusiness Process Re-engineering (BPR) initiativeshave typically achieved much less than promised (p.230). As Burnes observed, even well established

    change initiatives, for which a great deal of infor-

    mation, advice and assistance is available, are no guar-

    antee of success ([6], pp. 172173).

    Part of the reason must be the inherent novelty and

    complexity of the change being developed. Rapid tech-

    nical developments, and the promise of prime mover

    competitive advantages, tempt senior managers towards

    novel solutions. They sign up to projects involving

    advanced systems which inevitably require a great deal

    of learning and discovery during implementation.

    Another factor is the unique organisational setting of

    each attempt at change. Even a well-known manage-

    ment practice acquires a degree of novelty when it is

    applied in a particular organisation, with its own dis-

    tinct history and current circumstances. It is easy to

    ignore the systemic nature of organisations, and so

    underestimate the ripple eects of a project, and hence

    the scale of what needs to be done. And any one pro-

    ject is likely to be part of a wider cluster of changes

    which will have unpredicted links to each other.

    International Journal of Project Management 18 (2000) 297306

    0263-7863/00/$20.00 7 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.PII: S0263-7863(99 )00031 -9

    * Corresponding author. Tel.: +44-141-330-5660; fax: +44-141-


    E-mail address: (D. Boddy).

  • Another explanation, and the focus of this paper,lies in the way people manage the change. There aremany anecdotal examples of management introducingpotentially acceptable changes in a way that is almostguaranteed to create indierence, opposition and fail-ure. The process of implementation matters as muchas the content or substance of the change. Changesthat aect how people work, who they work with,their status, interests and future prospects are inher-ently dierent from those that involve isolated physicalchanges. The use of established project managementtechniques will undoubtedly assist those conductingmessy organisational change projects. But they cannotin themselves cope with situations where there aredierent interpretations of what should be done, ormajor conflicts of interest over the solutions proposed.Nor are participative or consultative techniques likelyto be sucient where a change threatens establishedpractices that have deep significance to those aected.Such changes are likely to require a range ofapproaches to get things done. These could includeusing political and power-based methods [79] as wellas those of project management and participation.So the search continues for the factors that make

    the dierence between successful and unsuccessfulchange projects. In this article, we present the resultsof a quantitative study of supply chain partnering, aform of organisational change currently in fashion. Inthe next section, we outline what we mean by the termand relate it to organisational change in general. Wethen indicate our perspective on change projects andsummarise the many prescriptions which observershave oered to those responsible for managing suchprojects. We present the methods and results of oursurvey and conclude with the practical implications forthose managing supply chain projects and other formsof organisational change. This latter section also drawsupon the evidence of long-term case studies conductedas a separate element of the research project.

    2. Supply chain partnering as an example of change

    Supply chain partnering refers to situations in whichorganisations at related points in the supply chainagree to work in a more co-operative rather thanadversarial manner. The argument is that extremeforms of hierarchies and markets have disadvantages(see, for example, Ref. [10]). Partnering occupies themiddle ground between them as a way of organisingeconomic activity. It is an attempt to build close, long-term links between organisations that are distinct, butwhich see benefits in working closely together.Introducing partnering involves substantial changes

    in both organisations. There is more to it than a will-ingness to work together to develop a trusting relation-

    ship. If this happens it does so on the foundations ofmany tangible changes in the way the two organis-ations work, and in the organisations themselves.There is scope for radical changes in the allocation ofresponsibilities for doing and co-ordinating work.Companies often need to re-design business processesand perhaps some of their technologies and physicalfacilities. It may also require deep cultural changes ifpeople in both organisations are to move from anadversarial, arms-length relationship to one that ismore collaborative and with greater mutual obli-gations.In many respects partnering is similar to other

    forms of large-scale organisational change. There aremany players and interest groups; it is aected by pol-icy changes at other levels of either of the partneringorganisations; it is implemented in the course of con-ducting the daily business of both organisations; andthe unfamiliarity of the concept means that implemen-tation is more of a voyage of discovery than of follow-ing a well-charted route. The parallels with emergingviews of strategy [11] are close. Understanding howcompanies tried to implement this form of innovation,and whether the methods used aected the outcomes,is likely to be useful to those managing any form ofmajor change.

    3. Perspectives on organisational change

    The study reported here took account of currenttheories of organisational change. Fairly commonground in modern empirical studies of change is thatthe outcomes of innovation are unpredictable. Theyreflect not only the substantive novelty of the changeitself but also how parties promote their intereststhrough the structures, cultures and political systemsof the organisation [12,13]. This interplay of interestgroups, within a dynamic business environment, oftenmeans that change projects take unexpected turns.This brings new challenges to managers charged withimplementing them. That led the research team to askwhether common prescriptions about managing changehelped or hindered project managers in dealing withsuch complex and volatile situations.The team, therefore, reviewed a selection of com-

    monly cited works on change management, such asSlevin and Pinto [14], Kanter [15], Kotter and Schle-singer [16], Dawson [12] and Burnes [6] together withother relevant empirical work such as Boddy andBuchanan [17] and Macbeth and Ferguson [18]. Itappeared that there was some consistency in the pre-scriptions made by these authors. Grouping themunder the broad headings of project planning, struc-ture and implementation, 11 practices were identified

    D. Boddy, D. Macbeth / International Journal of Project Management 18 (2000) 297306298

  • which were commonly recommended to those imple-menting change. These were:

    Project planning. setting clear goals. ensuring agreement with goals. having senior management commitment

    Project structure. creating structures to manage the change. ensuring adequate resources. having a powerful and respected champion. appointing a capable project manager

    Project implementation. creating a project team with the right membership. preparing a detailed yet flexible project plan. consulting widely with those aected. setting up adequate controls.

    The diculty is that most of these prescriptions werebased on personal experience or deductions from asmall number of cases. The latter can give valuableinsights into a particular situation, but it does not fol-low that the conclusions apply elsewhere. The researchteam therefore decided to test the validity of such pre-scriptions by drawing on a much wider range of ex-perience. The aim was to establish if there was anyquantitative evidence about the relative eectiveness ofthe prescriptions on how to introduce change.

    A postal survey was designed to explore thoseaspects of the change process most suitable to thatresearch technique. The major themes were:

    . what proportion of attempts at partnering suc-ceeded?

    . were some of the recommended change managementpractices more often linked with success thanothers?

    The hypothesis was that:

    The project management practices used in organiz-ations which claimed to have implemented partneringsuccessfully would dier significantly from thosewhich claimed to have been less successful.

    The survey began by presenting respondents with adefinition of partnering oered by Partnership Sour-cing [19]. It then elaborated this and sought to estab-lish the current status of partnering in theorganisation. The questions directed at the process ofchange took the form of statements about changemanagement practices, grouped as above. Thus projectplanning was covered by Questions 412, project struc-ture by Questions 1323 and project implementationby Questions 2445. For each statement, respondentswere asked to indicate the extent to which it had been

    used on their partnering project by indicating a pointon a 5 point scale. The survey concluded with standardinformation about the company. Those parts of thequestionnaire most relevant to this discussion arereproduced in Appendix A.

    4. The survey

    A pilot study was conducted amongst participantson a related workshop. The main survey was con-ducted among firms which had some (however limited)experience of supply chain partnering. The source wasa database of companies which had independentlyrequested information on the topic. We selected 350companies and posted a copy of the questionnaire tothe contact name. We received 100 (29%) usablereturns.The largest single group (42%) of replies came from

    manufacturing businesses. Respondents were asked toindicate their own position in relation to the partner-ing project. 41% described themselves as the main pro-moter or champion. Others included part ofimplementation team (19%), project manager (6%)and part of strategic planning group (21%)indicat-ing a well-informed group of respondents.The research team divided responses into those which

    claimed to have been successful in introducing partner-ing, and those which had not. The basis for this decisionwas the respondents answer to a question about theoutcome of the partnering project. Clearly, there arehazards with this, but various statistical tests confirmedthat the two sets of replies were being accurately distin-guished. Other statistical tests confirmed that the pos-ition of the respondent in relation to the project had notsignificantly aected their perception of the outcome.

    5. The results what factors made a dierence?

    Two forms of statistical analysis were used, chi-square and discriminant function. The results are pre-sented for both analyses, and then discussed.The chi-square analysis showed that (at a signifi-

    cance level of 0.01) companies which had been unsuc-cessful in partnering had dealt with four practicesdierently from those which had been successful.These are shown in Table 1.In order to establish more clearly which combi-

    nation of variables most contributed to success orfailure, we then used discriminant function analysis[20]. This showed that answers to five questions onthe process of change7, 14, 35, 38 and 39 con-tributed most to success or failure. Companieswhich had been successful at partnering tended toagree with the statements in Questions 7, 14 and

    D. Boddy, D. Macbeth / International Journal of Project Management 18 (2000) 297306 299

  • 35. They tended to disagree with the statements in

    Questions 38 and 39.

    Combining the results from both tests shows that

    the survey respondents showed a statistically signifi-

    cant tendency to agree with the following statements

    (presented to match the earlier headings):

    Project planning

    . Q7: The people aected by the change within my or-ganisation agreed with the goals.1,2

    Project structure

    . Q14: Management created a clear structure to man-age the change.1,2

    . Q15: Senior management accurately estimated theamount of resources needed to implement the


    . Q22: The joint senior team created specific lines ofauthority and responsibility.1

    Project implementation

    . Q35: A satisfactory system was developed tomeasure the progress of the change.2 They showed a

    statistically significant tendency to disagree with:

    . Q38: Care was taken to ask people with dierentperspectives for their views on the change.2

    . Q39: There was a lot of exploring and experimentingwith ideas.2

    6. Discussion

    Responses to Question 7 show that the peopleaected by the change in successful partnering compa-nies had agreed with the goals. This is consistent withthose prescriptions on change management whichemphasize the value of putting eort into convincingthose aected that the change is a worthwhile way ofmeeting some pressing business need. The unsuccessfulcompanies had not secured that degree of agreementwith the goals of partnering.Answers to Question 14 show that in o...


View more >