The Road to Success
Causality and Root Cause Analysis
It has been observed that solving the wrong problem is a common ailment in change management. What then should managers do so that the chances of identifying the right problem is improved? There is an effective method that middle managers and individual contributors often use, yet executives managing change initiatives seem to forget. Root cause analysis using the “Five Whys” approach helps executives go beyond “scratching the surface” and prevent the usual knee-jerk reaction of jumping on an easy surface solution. The five whys process is often accompanied by the use of the fishbone diagram where underlying causes visually branch from intermediate steps in the analysis of ultimate causation. The key is “causation” and ensuring that observed linkages between events and outcomes are correctly assumed. Management brings with it the tendency to employ error in judgment when thinking through cause and effect. For example, a common error involves “post hoc ergo propter hoc”—Latin for “after this, therefore because of this.” In management, this error occurs by noticing that “event A” occurs followed by “outcome B,” followed by assuming that A caused B. As an example, a company is failing, a new CEO is hired, and results improve. It is easy to assume that “A caused B,” but making this connection requires a deep dive into the evidence. Ultimately, root cause analysis is a form of diagnosis. In the same way that a medical doctor seeks to understand the reason for illness, a change manager seeks to understand underlying organizational diseases correctly. Without this understanding, a change agent is rather like a doctor prescribing the wrong medicine because of the failure to correctly diagnose the disease.
Learning the Forgotten Art of Diagnosis
A change management initiative has a clear beginning and ending, and it is complex, unique, and employs resources in order to achieve the desired goals. A change management initiative may therefore be defined as a project because the characteristics of change initiatives align well with the definition of a project. A project formally begins with a project charter, and the project charter includes a brief statement of scope. Scope is linked to the project requirements, and requirements are that which the deliverables of the project are intended to satisfy. A change manager therefore acts as a project manager whose first job is to understand the requirements of the project and develop the project scope. In essence, the project manager begins with WHAT needs to change. However, as is in the case of developing requirements, organizational problems are complex. Determining what needs to change is therefore a nontrivial matter. Change management requirements involve the analysis of a complex system; so keeping Senge’s ideas in mind regarding the underlying complexity of organizations, requirements and scope of the change initiative are more reliably developed by collecting multiple sources of evidence in order to define the problem. It bears remembering that it is not uncommon for executives to hear multiple reasons daily for why something is not working. However, this is anecdotal evidence and cannot be accepted at face value (Figure 9.1).
Figure 9.1 Anecdotal evidence is not enough
What Needs to Change? How Can You Know?
Achieving a holistic understanding of the root cause or the underlying problem in which a change initiative is intended to solve requires analysis and research. The question for the change agent or company leadership then becomes, “What kind of research is necessary, and how is it done?” There are two broad-based approaches to research, and these are quantitative and qualitative research techniques. It is tempting for the leadership to focus first on quantitative research techniques given that quantitative research is, by its association with numbers, considered as hard science. On the other hand, quantitative research typically relies on survey instruments for data collection. Survey instruments are a quick and efficient means for collecting data, but what results is only a snapshot of individual perceptions. Quantitative research therefore “learns a very little from a lot”—a snapshot from a small sample—which is used to test theory and hypotheses. When attempting to better understand the phenomena, while qualitative research techniques provide significant depth of analysis, it does not mean that numeric data cannot be employed in the research of the phenomena. Sales trends, financial trends, transaction data—all of this information is useful to aid in drawing conclusions regarding the root cause. The numeric data combined with qualitative data such as interviews aid in building up a complete picture of “what is going on.” This is a different approach from the typical practice of quantitative research that tests hypotheses (Figure 9.2).
Figure 9.2 Qualitative versus quantitative methods
Understanding what needs to change requires a depth of analysis and consideration. A good way to achieve such depth is to approach the diagnosis of the organization through qualitative research techniques. Qualitative research uses an inductive approach that is used to develop theory. In other words, the theory regarding the nature of the problem(s) faced by the organization emerges from a close, often iterative, analysis of evidence in various forms collected from the organization. In some ways, this approach is akin to root cause analysis and the “five whys.” The root cause of any organization-wide problem is well considered and goes beneath a surface consideration of the issues. Still, the solution that results is only a theory regarding the underlying cause of the problem. Therefore, when a leader of an organization begins a change management initiative, the individual is doing so based on a theory of what is wrong with the organization. A change in initiative is therefore akin to a test of a hypothesis. Hypothesis testing is usually associated with quantitative research. Data are collected and evaluated statistically, and the hypothesis is accepted or rejected. Qualitative inductive analysis and quantitative hypothesis testing therefore go “hand in hand.” Theory is built or, in this case, a theory of the underlying root cause of the problem is developed, and then tested once developed. It is therefore reasonable that the diagnosis—or theory regarding the underlying problems in the organization—is developed using inductive, qualitative research techniques. Qualitative research relies on documentary analysis, interviews, focus groups, and observations. It is an in-depth capture of individual and group perceptions and is therefore more labor-intensive. Unlike quantitative techniques, qualitative research “learns a great deal from a little” or narrow context. This is what the manager, leader, or change agent needs for a complete and holistic diagnosis of the organization—an in depth understanding of what is wrong in the organization and what change is likely to be able to correct it. It is recommended therefore that diagnosis in change management employs qualitative research techniques in order to develop a theory regarding what in the organization needs to change.
In the same way that anecdotal evidence should not be accepted, no single source of evidence is capable of capturing the essence of the problems triggering the need for change. Multiple sources of evidence are required to arrive at a diagnosis of the underlying issue or problem. The idea is to analyze each source of evidence, compare them, contrast them, search for relationships and overall patterns, and finally synthesize conclusions. The term “triangulation” is used to describe this form of analysis, and as the name infers, at least three evidence sources should be brought to bear in the analysis. Such triangulation is often carried out within a court of law. A prosecuting attorney presents witness testimony and fingerprint evidence, and bank account records paint a picture of the apparent guilt of the defendant in order to achieve a conviction. Likewise, the change manager uses multiple evidence sources to gain a sense of what is really going on in the organization (Figure 9.3).
Figure 9.3 Triangulation of evidence sources
The Diagnosis Methodology
The Process: Phase 1
In order to be successful, a business must be grounded and confront the facts of the matter. The facts may well differ from what employees think they are (and say that they are), rather than what they are. For this reason, it is recommended that the process of diagnosis begins with collecting and analyzing internal documents. Internal documents ground the research by providing a factual record that forms the starting point for the following data collection efforts. Internal documents include e-mails, presentations, reports, process flows, and spreadsheets, which when analyzed and compared provide a clear picture of the issues faced by the organization. A few forms of qualitative data analysis may be undertaken with documentary evidence. For example, the documents may be ordered so that a historical timeline of events may be observed. Additionally, processes described in documents may be captured using flowcharting or swim-lane notation so that what function took an action or made a decision may be determined as well as how such action may have crossed organizational boundaries. Data-intensive documents such as spreadsheets and presentations may be summarized to capture performance information, patterns and trends, and disconnects between progress and plans. Finally, verbal information found in written reports, e-mails, and other documents may be thematically analyzed using qualitative data analysis techniques. This involves highlighting and coding important passages, combining multiple related passages to visualize themes, and by arranging the identified themes so that an overall picture or conceptual framework of the problem or issue under study emerges (Figure 9.4).
Figure 9.4 Performing analysis
The Process: Phase 2
Once the initial documentary analysis is complete, it is recommended that the interim findings are prepared, presented, and discussed with a focus group for validation purposes. It is recommended that the members of the focus group should consist of a cross-section of 7 to 10 key people from the organization. The primary purpose of the focus group is that of validation. For example, the focus group session seeks to understand if the group agrees or disagrees with the interim findings. Also, it is determined whether the focus group has anything to add to the documentary analysis. Finally, the focus group session is recorded and transcribed, and qualitative data analysis is performed on the transcript of the recording. The results of the thematic analysis of the focus group transcript is used to refine and enhance the findings of the Phase 1 documentary analysis (Figure 9.5).
Figure 9.5 The focus group as means for validation
The Process: Phase 3
The validated summary of the two phases of data collection may now be used as the basis for discussion in one-on-one interviews with individuals selected from within the organization. A reasonable number of interviews would involve 15 to 20 employees drawn from different functional groups or departments. The number of people to be interviewed depends on a concept referred to as “saturation.” Once interviews have proceeded to the point that no further new information is gleaned, the interview data collection may be terminated and the focus is shifted to the qualitative data analysis of the interviews (Figure 9.6).
Figure 9.6 Use validated summary in one-on-one interviews
The individuals selected should not be drawn from those who participated in the focus group validation or provided documents for analysis. The selection of a different set of individuals for the interviewing phase allows for the diversity of viewpoints essential for triangulation. The multiple sources of evidence that are collected and analyzed therefore allows for a more comprehensive picture of the problem or issue under consideration, and further provides insights into possible solutions. As in the case of the focus group, each interview should be recorded and transcripts created for analysis (Figure 9.7).
Figure 9.7 Record and transcribe interviews
Once again, the thematic analysis of the interviews is used to validate interim findings, and to supplement and finalize the conceptual framework and resulting theory or diagnosis regarding the exact nature of the problem to be addressed by a change management initiative.
The Process: Phase 4
In the final phase of the diagnosis research process, all previous participants are gathered for a review of the findings from the previous three phases. This is a final validation step in the research and is used to both correct and, if necessary, confirm findings, and to aid in developing a final summary for presentation to the overall organization as well (Figure 9.8).
Figure 9.8 Review results with all participants
The final validation session is also used to develop a messaging strategy and brainstorm implementation plan approaches. It should be noted that the overall data collection process takes time and careful planning as well as effort. This alone is likely to prevent the snap judgment that tends to happen in the context of change decision-making. The diagnosis process helps ensure that executives seeking change move beyond surface consideration of issues.
Presenting the Diagnosis
It has been observed that formal change management frameworks focus on events referred to as “unfreezing,” “defining the problem,” and “creating a sense of urgency.” The presentation of the diagnosis to the organization at large provides an opportunity for the leader of the change initiative to accomplish this by demonstrating that the change diagnosis resulted from an in-depth analysis process (Figure 9.9).
Figure 9.9 Presenting to the entire organization
Further, the diagnosis is observed to be derived not from the whim of the leader, but from a deep consideration of a broad range of stakeholders within the organization. The presentation therefore has the potential to gain acceptance and buy-in from the organization prior to carrying out the actual change initiative.
Diagnosis Is a Process
It is observed that diagnosis is an iterative process of collecting, analyzing, summarizing, and validating evidence collected from the organization. The problem identified from this iterative approach becomes the starting point for the change initiative. The change initiative implements changes to strategy and processes designed to solve the problem identified in the diagnosis process. As a result, the change initiative is the test of the quality of the problem-solving process. Change does not end here. Data from the change initiative are collected and reviewed, and an unsuccessful result can trigger successive diagnosis cycles (Figure 9.10).
Figure 9.10 Summary of diagnosis methodology
What’s Next?
It is at this point in the analysis that the change management models come into clearer focus. The bias toward implementation of change fits well with a change initiative that has resulted from an in-depth and well-researched diagnosis process. Such a process if followed will aid in preventing knee-jerk reactions from executives responding to internal or external triggers, jumping to conclusions, or the adoption of pet ideas.
Culture
A Japanese manager was once asked by a Western employee,
Why is it that Japanese titles in the workplace seem so vague to Westerners? Also, why is it that Japanese job descriptions tend to be very general with overlapping roles—particularly from the point of view of Western employees?
The Japanese manager responded,
Ah…that’s easy. When a Japanese employee experiences great success—we want to share that success with all others within the group. Likewise, if a Japanese employee experiences failure, we do not want the employee to bear the blame all alone. We prefer to share!
This example provides insights into culture. A response such as this from a Western manager would likely be very difficult to accept by employees—
a culture that celebrates individual achievement and rewards. While culture is often viewed as an intangible factor, it is nonetheless very real in the context of change. Each company tends to do things in a certain way, and
it is this “way” that can either incorporate the change effort into the institutional genetic map or reject it as a form or disease or invading ideology. An examination of team development theory from the discipline of project management provides some clues on how this works. According to Tuckman
(1977), teams progress through stages of development as they grow and become effective. The process begins when teams come together and encounter each other as a working unit for the first time. This stage is called forming and it includes the formalities of getting to know one another and grasping the mission in which the team is assigned. Once the effort begins, team members tend to engage in conflict as they sort out roles, responsibilities, and reporting hierarchy. This stage is referred to as storming because of the conflict and the often-messy process involved in coming together as a team. It is a storm of activity and it takes time to work through—often with great difficulty. After the dust settles, the team begins to establish rules and policies for working together. The rules of the team may not be explicitly stated but represent the common understanding of how team members get things done together. This stage is referred to as norming and it is norms that appear to most impacted by change proposals pursued from outside the team. The final stage in team development is performing and this is a property that emerges once the team has grown to work together and established implicit or explicit policies, norms, and working relationships. In what ways does team development theory relate to change at the organizational level? Large organizations were once small organizations and, in the same manner as project teams, they evolved over time and established norms. Further, much of the work that gets done in large organizations today, be it product development work, R&D, or strategic initiatives, involves many teams (Figure 9.11).
Figure 9.11 Change and storming
One reason for viewing organizational change through the lens of team development is that team development theory illustrates the difficulty experienced by individuals in establishing working relationships and norms. Further, once this occurs and teams are performing effectively, they tend to be tightly bound together and resistant to outside influence and interference. Finally, the organization that an executive seeks to change may be composed almost exclusively of highly focused teams that are already on a path that they deem to be effective already. Proposing something different is likely to scramble existing teams or leave existing teams in place but with a different mission. Each of these impacts are likely to reset the phases of team development thereby forcing a large portion of the organization to return to the storming mode of operation. The noise created by this situation could well be a factor in the resistance associated with change proposals. Understanding culture is therefore rather like understanding a forest. Viewing culture from the team level and the micro-impact that change has on teams is like understanding the forest at the tree level. Without trees living in harmony there is no forest, so it is incumbent upon change managers to recognize change impact at the team level in light of team development theory.
Company culture also reveals itself in the language and terminology it uses, the values in which it places its emphasis, and the goals that are implicitly understood to be a good fit for the firm. A change of direction that is outside of accepted norms is likely to be viewed as a threat to the health of the firm. In some instances, the forces of resistance may think of their battle as one of good versus evil and will fight to the last breath to prevent the change. Effective change managers understand this and gradually socialize change ideas with the known resistance to help them see benefits as well as the rationale behind the change. It is always preferred to have the resistance “army” supporting and fighting for the change proposal rather than seeking to rally other employees to fight it at every step. For managers new to change, consider that change proposals are likely to impinge on the existing culture, and for better or worse, this will trigger a reaction. Change managers are well-advised to think ahead, study the culture, and understand it prior to seeking to change it.
Clarity, Practicality, and Tangibility
Much has been said about the lack of clarity in direction, for example, SMART versus DUMB goals. Having the right kind of goals in change management is no doubt essential for success. On the other hand, clarity goes beyond goal setting. Consider as an example a manager who seeks to change the company by adopting some new technology. The first question that comes to the minds of employees is likely to be “why?” Successful change managers will take steps to make it clear—be it a new product, market, process, technology, or customer. Some managers can make change clear at one level, but cannot get to the level needed for full comprehension and buy-in from the organization. Consider the following sequence of questions:
“We are going to acquire a company with a new technology that we will incorporate into all products!”
Question: Why?
“Because we will sell more product!”
Question: How do we know?
“Because customers love new technology!”
Question: If we sell more, will we be more profitable?
“The new technology will enable us to be more efficient and this will lead us to greater profitability!”
Question: How does the new technology make us more efficient?
Question: Do we know how to make products with this technology?
Question: Will we need additional factories?
Question: Will all of us require retraining on the new technology?
Question: Will there be layoffs because we are more efficient and require fewer workers?
Notice how the questions continue, but not the answers. The answers are not likely to be forthcoming—but when they are—they are often unconvincing. Clarity in change management means being able to break down the change in detail and fluently discuss its impact.
The practicality of the proposed change—or rather the lack of it—is often a forgotten consideration in a proposed change initiative. An example of this involves comparing the performance of the organization prior to initiating the change versus the performance dreamed about as a result of the proposed change. If, for example, the company is currently losing money, is it realistic to consider that after change the company will be wildly profitable? If the company is currently ineffective, will the change lead the company to be astoundingly effective? While stretch goals may be motivating, moving company performance from zero to infinity is not likely. Employees will be the first to understand this and will as a result either ignore or resist what change management is proposing. In short, employees “ain’t buying what management is selling.” Successful change managers will understand that there is a wisdom that exists in the crowd and will listen to it for guidance with respect to the practicality of change. Change that lacks tangibility also has a way of “losing” the employee population. The way to avoid this is to keep the intangible “dreamy” ideas found in a typical vision and values statement out of the specific strategic initiatives designed to affect change. A company that mixes the vision with the focused execution of change will likely produce a change initiative that lacks the required focus. Some examples of actual company vision statements today include the following:
“Become one of the leading players in our business areas worldwide and contribute to comfortable home and living environment by expanding new business fields.”
“Connect, Protect, Explore and Inspire the World through…. innovation”
“To save people money so they can live better.”
Each of these statements as compelling and noble as they may be do not provide enough information for driving change. Some questions likely to arise from such statements include:
- How do we define “leading player”?
- What is our business area?
- What do we mean by “new business fields”?
- What do we mean by “connect”?
- What category of innovation will be our focus?
- How will we save money for people?
- How do we measure the construct “live better”?
Change management efforts must “get real” and focus on credible, practical, clear, and tangible efforts. Fuzzy initiatives that raise too many questions will inevitably lead to the dissipation of the effort expended upon change.
Walk before Running
Unlike many members of the animal kingdom, humans are not able to walk as soon as they are born. In fact, they are not able to sit up, crawl, nor stand. This fact of human development provides a useful perspective for thinking about implementing change. Successful change often begins small, but then leads to successive changes that emerge as a larger, more substantial and complete change. In fact, change managers could do well to view change as a human development effort and seek to progress change through sitting, standing, walking, running, and training. The analog to this could be explained using the example of a process improvement change initiative. To illustrate:
- Sit: We have identified processes to govern our action.
- Stand: We have defined the processes to be employed in governing action.
- Walk: Employees are aware of our processes and know where to find them.
- Run: Processes are followed even when the context makes it difficult to do so.
- Train: We seek continuous improvement of processes and work to optimize (Figure 9.12).
Figure 9.12 Change and process improvement
In this example, some changes are predecessors for others. It makes no sense to promote process optimization, a late stage emergent state of maturity, when earlier stages of maturity have yet to develop. The word “maturity” is a keyword here and is a long-term prospect for the change manager. While the change manager can keep the ideal mature state in mind, the path to the final state must begin with a lower-level initial state. The idea behind “starting small with large-scale initiatives” is frequently observed in industry today. A classic example of this is in the adoption of Agile methodology in project management. Agile is a methodology that seeks to deliver a small element of functionality over time rather than attempting to do it all at once using traditional methods such as the Systems Development Life Cycle or other “waterfall method” approaches. Such methods do not imply that it is wrong to focus on the result. These methods do suggest that the result should be thought of as a destination at the end of a long pathway of stepping stones. While it is true that “those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones,” change managers should. They should lay out small goals and milestones, or better yet, “inch-pebbles” to set the direction in such a way that the organization walks before running.
Change Action and Governance
There is the saying, “To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven.” While the saying is ancient, the idea expressed has implications for change management. Change is best “served warm” when the organization, the market, technology, and the financial situation of the company is right. Further, once the initial diagnosis has been carried out and the organization is prepared, strategic change initiatives should follow naturally. They often do not for various reasons leading to the “hurry up and wait” syndrome led by managers who think that they want to lead change, but are reluctant to take that final step. Perhaps the time doesn’t seem right, or the organization doesn’t appear to be fully ready. While this may be true, the fact is that there may never be a perfect time for implementing change. Also, failing to act is an act. Not deciding is a decision. Managers who fear the commitment required to undertake change may not be aware of the possibility of carrying out change in phases. Further, the commitment to change may only in practice require a commitment to the initial phase.
Change management taken "one step at a time" could be viewed as a change life cycle, wherein each phase is contemplated, evaluated, executed, and controlled. Each phase is initiated with the approval of a committee of executive sponsors. Such sponsors ensure that proposals meet the entry requirements for each phase and provide budgets, milestones, and deliverable requirements for the phase. The team assigned to the phase proceeds to complete the work of the phase and presents results to the committee of executive sponsors once completed. Also, the team assigned to the change management initiative may call a meeting of sponsors if circumstances warrant it. One example of this is the case in which the team confirms that it is not able to meet committed schedule, budget, or assigned deliverable milestones. When this is the case, the team must report and review status with the committee of sponsors who then proceed to approve, deny, or request additional information. This close interaction with and management by sponsors is known as governance. Companies who employ governance practices are able to act on change quickly while still having the assurance that the change initiatives are tracking to plan and remain in alignment with executive sponsorship.
Project Management and Change Implementation
The term “change initiative” is employed in change management because actions must be carried out and things in one form or another must be delivered in order to bring about change. A change initiative is a temporary activity. It has a clear beginning and end, it is unique, it can be complex, and it employs resources. Therefore, strategic initiatives are projects and may be managed as such. In fact, the beginning activities of a project resemble the activities that must be carried out within the domain of change management. What happens first in a project? The project is officially authorized using a charter and then the “players” who have an interest in the outcome of the project, that is, stakeholders, are identified. What follows is the creation of the project scope. The scope of the project includes both a succinct statement of the scope (what the project will and will not deliver) and a detailed breakdown of all deliverables. The deliverables are then closely examined to identify the activities required to produce the deliverables and the durations are estimated. The activities are sequenced in logical order so that the overall duration of the change initiative is understood. Next, resources are assigned to complete the activities and the costs associated with each resource are attached to the schedule so the budget for the initiative may be generated. These initial steps seem rather like low-level “blocking and tackling” used to develop a schedule. Project management practice goes beyond this low-level sequence of events by including components of a larger plan that are ideal for a holistic implementation of change. Beyond the identification of the scope (i.e., deliverables) to be produced, the duration (schedule), and resource cost (budget), the project management process framework makes available process guidance for every element of a change management initiative. The processes are intended to be incorporated into a series of plans that are integrated together in the “Integration Management Knowledge Area” to form a comprehensive project plan. These processes include the following:
Quality
The quality processes in the project management framework focus the attention of the change management on the requirements of each deliverable. For example, quality management in this context aids the change manager in the quest to identify requirements, create specifications for such requirements, and then verifying that the deliverables meet the specifications. Further, the quality management knowledge area directs the change manager to validate that the deliverables not only meet the specifications of the change initiative, but also meet the original requirements.
Human Resources
The need to motivate and obtain buy-in from team members and organizational stakeholders has already been identified. Project human resource processes do include guidance for team development and motivation—the processes go beyond this by raising additional questions and providing suggestions for answering these questions. For example, change managers consider from where the team members will be acquired. They further think about to what extent team members will be involved in planning and decision-making. Also, once the change is complete, what happens to team members when the change initiative is realized and the team is disbanded? The project management resource processes suggest how managers should arrive at answers to such questions. Also, not all resources in a project are human resources. Equipment, supplies, funding, these are all the resources that a project, in this case, a change initiative manages. How are such resources obtained and management? The project management framework suggests answers.
Communication
Recall that uncertainty, fear, and resistance is the downfall of the change initiative. Change managers intervene in this negative cycle by employing effective communication. The question, however, is “how”? Change managers may send e-mail, hold “all-hands” or departmental “stand-up meetings,” employ conference calls, write reports, and the list is endless. Change managers require guidance when it comes to determining the
“5 Ws” of communication—Who, What, When, Where, How, and Why. The project management process framework directs particular focus on the “How” and “When.” For example, there are categories of communication that are most effective when delivered using one form of media versus another. Depending on the context, an e-mail may be a better fit for delivering a message than a company-wide meeting. Such distinctions in communication media tend to get lost in any project, but are essential factors in a project as important as a change initiative. Finally, effective communication takes quite a bit of work on the part of the change manager. If not careful—as the launch of the completed change initiative
approaches—the team leading the initiative may become overwhelmed with collecting data, developing reports, and disseminating them to various stakeholder groups. The creation of a communications plan early in the project can streamline the overall communication effort so that the right message goes to the right place and time without tying up more resources than necessary.
There is the old saying that “if anything can go wrong—it will go wrong.” The fact that a change initiative exists suggests that something somewhere went wrong and something new must be developed in order to address the problem or provide course correct. Further, the change initiative that gets planned may be derailed by unanticipated circumstances. The project management framework offers a step-by-step approach to incorporating thinking about risks and dealing with risks within a change initiative. In a project, risks are identified, assessed, and ranked. Once ranked, response plans for risks are considered and adopted. Why develop response plans after risks are ranked? This is because managers leading projects and initiatives cannot track all possible risks. Instead, managers focus on those risks deemed to be most important. Responses to risks include mitigation, avoid, retain, and transfer. Mitigation is a response that seeks to minimize the impact of a risk should it materialize. Risks are avoided when teams take alternative paths that do not exhibit the risk that is identified. A risk considered to be manageable and more expensive to mitigate than simply accepted is said to be retained risk. Finally, project management processes include guidance for assigning risks to third parties. This is referred to as risk transfer and may involve compensation in return for assigning risks. Typically, this takes the form of insurance or contractual terms.
Procurement
Change initiatives can and often do require resources from outside the company. This may involve labor, equipment, technology, or something as significant as an enterprise resource planning system. Managers focused on change may lack experience with matters such as vendor identification, vendor selection, and contract management. Furthermore, the day-to-day informal interaction of carrying out work and exchanging deliverables between functional groups within the company may not sufficiently support the day-to-day management of an outside vendor. The project management process framework aids in filling in the gaps in skills and experience of the manager so that procurement elements within the change initiative may operate smoothly.
The players involved in the change initiative are known as stakeholders. Stakeholders may be those on the team or those who will be affected in some way by the change. The idea of the stakeholder goes beyond participation and impact. Stakeholders include those who may have an interest in the outcome of the initiative. Interested parties may or may not support the initiative, and this is one reason why the team leading the initiative understand who these individuals are so that they can be engaged. Engagement may act to reduce the negative impact of those who do not favor the project, but engagement may also lead to the shifting of stakeholders from the “opposition” to the “supporter” camp. The question for the change manager is “how”? The project management process framework provides a number of suggested tools and techniques for identifying, analyzing, ranking in order of importance, and engaging stakeholders. Since change management primarily involves marshaling the time, energy, skills, and emotions of organizational stakeholders, it could be said that project management process guidance for stakeholders is one of the most important areas of guidance for the manager of change initiatives (Figure 9.13).
Figure 9.13 Change and project management
Project Management Process Summary
It is observed that change initiatives are often highly involved, complex activities that cut across functional domains within a company, internal and external stakeholders, vendors, and even customers. The possibility of going offtrack, missing the mark in terms of requirements, going over budget, or getting behind schedule is sufficiently high that the initiative must be closely managed. Some change managers will be more experienced at managing complexity than others. Since change initiatives fit the definition of a project given its temporary nature and focus on tangible deliverables, the project management process framework provides a compass that points the way toward how to build, manage, and control a complete plan.
The Change Life Cycle
The “change initiative as project” view leads to the understanding that a change initiative follows an overall life cycle. An example of a change life cycle is described as follows:
Phase 1: Feasibility
In this phase, change triggers are evaluated and reviewed with the committee of executive sponsors, and if considered sufficient to warrant further action, a study was initiated to evaluate the trigger event in more detail, outline the nature of the change required to meet the challenge, and finally assess the ability of the organization as well as the availability of resources to carry out the action (Figure 9.14).
Figure 9.14 The change management life cycle
Phase 2: Plan
If the output of the change feasibility phase is approved, the committee of executive sponsors then charters the change plan phase. This phase identifies the required deliverables, activities required to implement the deliverables, milestones, resource assignments, and budget. At the end of the plan phase, the committee once again reviews the output, considers the overall business need, and yet again ensures that the change continues to make sense in terms of strategic alignment. The end of the plan phase is likely to be the most daunting for executives. This is because up to this point, change implementation was under consideration and minimal resources and budget have been assigned. If the plan is approved, this means that execution will follow.
Phase 3: The Execution Phase
When change is executed, the change initiatives that are identified receive the go-ahead to be assigned to those resources who carry out the work. Often the work of the change initiative is assigned, monitored, and controlled using the work assignment tool known as the work package. The work package contains a bundle of related deliverables, activities, durations, milestones, and budgets that are assigned to individuals or small teams. The work is structured so that it is designed to be completed within 2 weeks. The benefit of assigning work in this way is that the change manager can closely manage all activities and confirm progress. Work that is designed to be completed within 2 weeks lends itself to frequent checking and updating. Further, the budget is sufficiently granular so that spending is closely monitored. The work package example illustrates how the execution phase of change management is carried out. Execution in this case is bundling work so that it is easily assigned and tracked, and then following up with controls as well as any necessary course correct.
Phase 4: Closure, Handover, and Lessons Learned
Once the work of the change initiative is completed, it is formally ended by reviewing the results with the committee of executive sponsors. Part of the final review will be capturing the lessons learned from the initiative and identifying which lessons could be incorporated into new processes, procedures, or policies associated with change management. Once this is accomplished, the development of the proposed change is complete. Consistent with Lewin’s concept of “refreezing,” the result of the
initiative—be it a new process, new reporting structure, or implementation of new technology—is formally handed over to functional groups. It is the functional groups within the organization that use the result of the change initiative with the goal in mind of incorporating it (i.e., “refreezing”) into day-to-day life.
Phase 5: Audit
Change initiatives are ushered in with a flurry of activity and excitement. Once the proposed change is complete and is implemented, the excitement dies down. The possibility exists that the organization may forget what has been learned and soon fall back into the old way of doing things. One way to ensure that this does not happen is to schedule a change audit 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after handover to ensure that “refreezing” has occurred, and that the organization has indeed changed. In the course of carrying out the audit, it may be discovered that the change as originally envisioned is less than ideal. This may lead to new change proposals, in which case a new phase 1 feasibility proposal is put forward for review.
The Change Management Roadmap
The fact that change follows a life cycle and is governed at the most senior level of the organization suggests that executives could consider change as a long-term exercise that is managed in a manner similar to the concept of continuous improvement in quality management. Also, the idea of a roadmap is a term that is also used in research and development and product management organizations. In the context of R&D and product development, the roadmap identifies what products the organization intends to deliver over the midterm—typically 3 to 5 years. Products are proposed on the roadmap based on the current understanding of the expected trajectory of the industry, market, and macroenvironment. While products are the “end-game” of the roadmap exercise, products are realized by a highly developed supporting infrastructure of technologies, components, platforms, people, and support systems.
It is possible for executives to consider long-term change goals in a manner similar to a product roadmap. Like the product roadmap, executives consider the trajectory of the market and macroeconomic trends and use this understanding to determine what is required of the organization to be successful in the future business environment. While future products rely on significant underlying components, technologies, platforms, and systems, future change also relies on significant underlying support systems and infrastructure. To use an analogy, whereas the change anticipated to be required in the future could be viewed as the “tip of the iceberg,” executives spend the years leading up to the change by building the elements of the iceberg that are found under the waterline. These elements include people, skills, know-how, systems, organizational structure, and technologies. Each of these elements could be envisioned, chartered, executed, and integrated over time. The change roadmap could be employed as a component of the annual strategic planning process. It is natural to conclude that some course corrections would be applied within each annual strategic planning cycle. Also, the plan would naturally respond to discontinuities in the market and macroenvironment. However, the chances of failure to change as well as failed change would likely be lower when a company employs the change roadmap approach. This is because change would never be a surprise. Instead, the roadmap would function more like a long-term building project. One common means for envisioning roadmap style long-term change is through the use of the process maturity model. Change is inherent in growth and maturity, and process improvement is an important long-term change goal. One such maturity model is one pioneered by PRTM. This model includes components of the PACE (Product and Cycle Time Excellence) methodology (Figure 9.15).
Figure 9.15 The long-term change roadmap
Source: McGrath and Romeri (1994).
Change Management and the PMO
Since change initiatives are projects, they follow a life cycle, and they can be linked together into a long-term roadmap, and it follows that change initiatives could benefit from a PMO (project management office) within the organization. A PMO takes different forms and may play different roles depending on the strategy and scale of the organization. The smallest instance of a PMO is an organization with one or more project managers who provide expert process guidance and templates for change initiatives and other projects implemented throughout the organization. A more mature instance of a PMO envisions the organization as a functional group where all of the project managers of the organization reside. Projects reaching an established financial threshold are assigned a project manager from the PMO. In addition, the PMO in this case is a repository of project management software tools, templates, and lessons learned guidance collected over the years and made available for retrieval. Finally, an advanced PMO may also lead the project and change initiative governance function. The committee of executive sponsors that functions as the decision-making body in change life cycle phases is either led or organized by the PMO director. Regardless of specific assignment in this governance scheme, it is the PMO that owns the life cycle and governance process for change initiatives and projects (Figure 9.16).
Figure 9.16 Oversight of change initiatives
Do We Really Want to Fail?
It is safe to assume that no one wants to fail, yet companies do this every day when they attempt change. What then should managers do in order to succeed? Don’t do what is likely to guarantee failure. To review, consider DON’T versus DO. The failed experiences of others provide a change management checklist that can help managers stop dead in their tracks prior to embarking upon the wrong move. Looking back, the following pointers are observed:
Failing to understand what needs to be changed
DON’T: Perform a surface analysis of problems faced by the company.
DO: Carefully perform an in-depth diagnosis of company problems.
DON’T: Adopt a narrow viewpoint while thinking “inside the box.”
DO: Seek to employ a wide perspective so that creative options become recognized.
DON’T: Assume that the application of your traditional strengths and know-how will solve the problem.
DO: Consider that you may be facing unique problems that extend beyond the previous know-how that resides within the company.
DON’T: Assume that leadership skill is a cure-all for organizational problems.
DO: Consider that the change context may require domain expertise and technical know-how as a required component of leadership.
DON’T: Make a strategic personnel decision without seeking counsel first.
DO: Counsel stakeholders who are affected by a change in leadership.
DON’T: Propose only change initiatives that are aligned with your functional background.
DO: Draw upon the expertise of others outside your domain of expertise as a means of considering solution alternatives.
Solving the wrong problem
DON’T: Make causal connections that aren’t there.
DO: Seek to understand the true underlying causal linkages between actions and results.
DON’T: Uncritically accept the judgment of consultants.
DO: Use consultant recommendations as one of many inputs when evaluating the nature of the problem and possible solutions.
DON’T: Assume that an expert in one field can contribute expert work in a completely different field (especially when the expert is an engineer).
DO: Recognize that different functional domains have specific skill sets and knowledge base that go beyond what may be offered by a manager with demonstrated general intelligence.
DON’T: Address process and execution problems by cheering on management staff.
DO: Avoid glossing over problems and issues with positive gloss and instead focus on communicating the nuts and bolts of problems and solutions.
Solving a perceived rather than a real problem
DON’T: Apply a management theory or practice because it is promoted by a notable academic.
DO: Use academic theory as one of many sources of evidence and guidance used for understanding the phenomena associated with the problem to be addressed.
DON’T: Create the appearance of a successful global company rather than be one.
DO: Seek to understand the underlying policies, processes, and procedures that facilitate the successful operation of a global company.
DON’T: Take steps to achieve the illusion of control rather than actual control.
DO: Openly explain and document the real decision-making authority boundaries available to managers in the organization.
DON’T: Take steps to address an issue that bothers you, and in doing so reduce the effectiveness of the company.
DO: Adopt a holistic view and seek to change issues that affect the overall performance of the company.
The wrong solution for the right problem
DON’T: Solve small problems when you are not able to solve large ones.
DO: Face the reality of the large-scale barriers to success that exist in the firm and address them head-on.
DON’T: Actively snuff out the expertise of a company that was acquired … for its expertise.
DO: Employ the expertise obtained in an acquisition to advance the strategy of the company.
DON’T: Always do exactly what clients tell you to do.
DO: Think about what clients are saying and seek to understand the underlying issues that are steering the activity of the client.
Transplanting a change solution from another company
DON’T: Introduce a compensation scheme from a company operating in a different context, culture, industry, or all of the above.
DO: Carefully study the context and culture of the company so that proposed compensation schemes align with strategy and change initiatives.
DON’T: Eliminate management layers so as to emulate a previous company operating in a different context, culture, industry, or all of the above.
DO: Think first about what the existing company needs prior to implementing practices or organizational designs originating in other companies.
DON’T: Insist that senior managers keep busy with operational tasks rather than strategic decision-making.
DO: Ensure that each level in the organization is performing the work that is appropriate for its authority and responsibility.
DON’T: Transplant a process or methodology from a familiar to an alien context.
DO: Evaluate the context of the solution to be applied prior to adopting it.
SMART versus DUMB goals
DON’T: Advocate for questionable, out of context change initiatives.
DO: Seek counsel on change ideas prior to their implementation.
DON’T: Promote the adoption of practices loosely defined by buzzwords.
DO: Insist on clear, direct, and focused communications accompanied by definitions for all terms employed in the workplace.
DON’T: Pursue markets because they are large.
DO: Pursue markets that have the potential to be profitable in light of Porter’s guidelines.
DON’T: Implement a new organizational design without explaining how it is supposed to work.
DO: Understand the “nuts and bolts” of the operation to the point that it can be clearly articulated to the organization.
DON’T: Enter a new market with a new product.
DO: Avoid striking out into the unknown as an act of desperation. Think first, then do.
DON’T: Analyze a change decision until the opportunity has passed.
DO: Understand that no decision is a decision already made.
Double down on what used to work
DON’T: Do what you know how to do rather than what the market requires you to do.
DO: Understand that was successful in the past may not be successful in the present.
DON’T: Do exactly what you previously did that worked in another time and context, but this time only harder.
DO: A strategy that is no longer appropriate in the present is likely to continue to be inappropriate, even if the strategy is pursued with additional vigor.
DON’T: Narrowly define what it is that your company does to limit opportunities to evolve.
DO: Widen the lens in which the company and its playing field is viewed so that opportunities to evolve are not missed.
DON’T: Fail to grasp the current means for attaining a competitive advantage in the marketplace.
DO: See the marketplace in terms of competitive advantage opportunity in terms of Porter’s framework.
GOBASH
DON’T: Overestimate future sales growth.
DO: Seek counsel in forecasts and liberally apply realism.
DON’T: Assume that a market that is growing today will continue to grow tomorrow.
DO: Understand that all markets have life cycles.
DON’T: Go big with major fixed cost investments because others are doing it.
DO: Understand that the stampede of competition may be headed for a cliff. Avoid the temptation to join them.
DON’T: Assume that an ERP system implementation will save the company.
DO: Understand that an ERP system is a highly complex and expensive undertaking that may or may not help the company advance strategic interests.
Betting the company on the big idea
DON’T: Readily introduce popular foreign products who use case is not fully understood.
DO: Carefully consider how customers might use an unfamiliar product in their day-to-day lives.
DON’T: Believe the following “Runaway successes in other countries will lead to success, change, and transformation if introduced in a different country.”
DO: Recognize that a success in one culture may not readily transfer to a different culture.
DON’T: Trust rosy forecasts for the new product and prepare accordingly.
DO: Follow evidence born of the study of market trends, customer feedback, and the product life cycle.
DON’T: Uncritically accept focus group data on proposed new products.
DO: Vet focus group evidence by comparing with other sources of data.
DON’T: Implement that pet “big idea” as soon as the opportunity presents itself.
DO: Recognize that the best idea for the company may not involve the promotion of your “big idea.”
The savior from the outside
DON’T: Assume that the expertise of the outsider is a good fit.
DO: Critically evaluate the experience and track record of the outsider.
DON’T: Believe that the outsider understands the company.
DO: Seek corroborating evidence that the outsider has a grasp of the market, the competition, and the unique issues faced by the company.
DON’T: Accept what the outsider tells you at face value during the recruiting process.
DO: Ask probing questions in all interactions and interviews during the hiring process to uncover gaps in candidate understanding and background.
DON’T: Be attracted to the unfamiliar.
DO: Recognize that what is new will become less attractive the better that it is understood. Understand that this is likely to happen quickly in an unfamiliar and risky market.
Successful growth and change by M&A
DON’T: Acquire a major competitor during the final stages of market decline.
DO: Retool prior to market collapse and leave what remains to competitors.
DON’T: Assume that customer buying patterns will not change in the absence of multiple competitors in the marketplace.
DO: Appreciate that the market is dynamic rather than static and that customers will respond to market shifts as they inevitably act in their own interest.
DON’T: Overlook the expense of maintaining and supporting acquired product lines.
DO: Be conservative when estimating how much money an acquisition is likely to save the company in practice.
DON’T: Build a larger company with a collection of smaller companies that seek to lead rather than follow the lead of the acquirer.
DO: Assess the cultural fit of target acquisitions and clearly identify and plan roles and responsibilities after acquisition.
Failure to implement
DON’T: Commit to change without understanding the implications to executive management.
DO: Present a realistic roadmap that clarifies the role of senior and executive management, including the constraints associated with required process discipline.
DON’T: Promote change that requires managers to do what they are never going to do.
DO: Expect that managers will act in their own best interest, and seek to understand what that is.
DON’T: Embark on change that ignores the culture, history, and fundamental capability of the company.
DO: Take incremental steps that the company can achieve.
DON’T: Attempt change on a grand scale with managers having only small-scale experience.
DO: Understand the background and experience level of managers who will be leading the change effort.
While the “Do” directives seem obvious compared to the “Don’ts,” in the heat of the moment when responding to a change trigger with a plan, the fact is that the “Dos” are never as obvious as they may appear at face value. Change initiatives fail more often than they succeed, making it clear that the quick and thoughtless path is the most likely path, and the “Do” directives have proven over time to be the “road not taken.” For managers, this infers that every change endeavor presents the manager with a fork in the road. When the fork is apparent, stop, look, and think, then choose “Do” over “Don’t” every time. Success is not guaranteed, but perhaps more likely.
An examination of the list of “Don’ts” reveals patterns to the mistakes that change managers often make. To illustrate this point, each of the list of “Don’ts” was uploaded to a word-cloud generator that analyzes text and weights words by their frequency. The word cloud is observed to emphasize a number of keywords for which change managers should pay close attention (Figure 9.17).
Figure 9.17 The keyword word cloud
The keywords of interest are:
| Assume | Context | Expert | Outsider |
| Culture | Expertise | Different | Process |
| Uncritically | Lead | Decision-making | Market |
These notable keywords occur more frequently than others found in the extensive list of “Don’t” words. While they are related to the many other words found in the word cloud, they do provide interesting waypoints for managers to think about and avoid when embarking upon change. As a result, they may be used to assess the success potential for a change initiative. A straightforward method for carrying out such an assessment is to create a simple survey instrument. The survey instrument measures the level of agreement with statements linked to the keywords resulting from the analysis of the “Don’t” list. A suggested “Change Success Assessment Instrument” is given below:
- My change initiative is grounded in my own assumptions regarding what is needed.
- Strongly agree
- Agree
- Neither agree nor disagree
- Disagree
- Strongly disagree
- I have given the context of the proposed change limited in-depth consideration.
- Strongly agree
- Agree
- Neither agree nor disagree
- Disagree
- Strongly disagree
- I have faith in experts who provide the change recommendations.
- Strongly agree
- Agree
- Neither agree nor disagree
- Disagree
- Strongly disagree
- I have brought in outsiders to lead the proposed change.
- Strongly agree
- Agree
- Neither agree nor disagree
- Disagree
- Strongly disagree
- I have given limited consideration of the company culture.
- I am confident in my expertise to know what change the company needs.
- Strongly agree
- Agree
- Neither agree nor disagree
- Disagree
- Strongly disagree
- The new path I have proposed for the company is significantly different from the previous direction.
- Strongly agree
- Agree
- Neither agree nor disagree
- Disagree
- Strongly disagree
- I have limited experience in process improvement
- Strongly agree
- Agree
- Neither agree nor disagree
- Disagree
- Strongly disagree
- I have uncritically accepted a proposal for a new direction for the company.
- Strongly agree
- Agree
- Neither agree nor disagree
- Disagree
- Strongly disagree
- The leadership of my company has limited change experience.
- Strongly agree
- Agree
- Neither agree nor disagree
- Disagree
- Strongly disagree
- Decision-making is a serious weakness within my company.
- Strongly agree
- Agree
- Neither agree nor disagree
- Disagree
- Strongly disagree
- I have limited experience within the market associated with the proposed change initiative.
- Strongly agree
- Agree
- Neither agree nor disagree
- Disagree
- Strongly disagree
- I discovered the idea for the change from a popular management book.
- Strongly agree
- Agree
- Neither agree nor disagree
- Disagree
- Strongly disagree
- My change initiative relies on the acquisition of a competitor
- Strongly agree
- Agree
- Neither agree nor disagree
- Disagree
- Strongly disagree
- My change initiative relies on the implementation of an ERP system.
- Strongly agree
- Agree
- Neither agree nor disagree
- Disagree
- Strongly disagree
The simple survey may be scored by using “strongly agree = 5” and “strongly disagree = 1.” When the survey is administered, scored, and tabulated, a score greater than the mean score of 3 suggests that from the failed change experiences of others the planned change initiative may require additional scrutiny and “shoring up” of weaknesses. Where should a change manager begin to shore up such weaknesses? Focus on the twelve keywords and the list of change management “Don’ts” that form the basis of each survey question. The keywords are linked to the “pointers for how to fail “don’t” list,” which, if avoided, increase the opportunity for successful change.
Change and Career Implications
It is no secret that executive and CEO pay is very high, particularly for those who have a track record of success. A key reason for this is that large-scale value creation activities are many and the pool of those who can lead them and produce the results desired by shareholders are few. The price for such talent is therefore bid up into the tens of millions of dollars per year depending on the size and scale of the company. The general public sees the money made by such executives, but may not see as clearly the level of difficulty of the management effort as well as the constant need for the management of problem-solving and change leadership required by the executive. A successful executive is not something that one is, but it is rather something that one “does.” A key element of this is change management. While it can be fun to be in charge and give orders to subordinates, successfully guiding a company over a period of years consists more of hard work than fun. The company 10 years from now may need to be quite a different company than it is today. It is observed that arriving at this new state is very difficult and goes far beyond giving orders. Some naturally gifted CEOs and change agents may have a vision of where to take the company and instinctively understand how to get there. Most, on the other hand, will
understand the importance of process in change management. They will appreciate the need for the company to evolve, but at the same time,
will pay careful attention to detail and take into account those factors that tend to get missed when acting in the heat of the moment. While successful CEOs have a reputation for acting quickly, the ones who rise to the top have depth. They take the time to bypass the “Don’ts” and instead adopt the “Dos.” The success CEO thrives on the rapid change of the business world of the information age. When the market shifts, they have done their homework and the companies they lead are ready to meet the challenge. They do not fail at change management (Figure 9.18).
Figure 9.18 Career progress
Final Advice for the Change Manager
For many years, the highlight of the week in popular radio was Kasey Kasem’s American Top 40. Reruns of this weekly countdown continue today on YouTube and Internet radio. Kasey ended each episode with a saying that change managers would do well to incorporate. The saying goes, “Keep your feet on the ground, but keep reaching for the stars.” The interesting aspect of this phrase is that it is often easy to either keep one’s feet on the ground or to reach for the stars. Rarely, however, is it easy to do both at once? Keeping “feet on the ground” evokes the idea of a static existence that focuses on living according to the strategy, policies, procedures, and processes of today. Businesses with the right strategy thrive by keeping “feet on the ground.” Jim Collins of “Built to Last” and “Good to Great” fame reinforces the idea of the “flywheel” effect in running a business. Using this analogy, Collins outlines the importance of “sticking to one’s knitting” and staying the course over the long term. The message is that doing what one is best at will eventually pay off and companies observed to be successful over the long run practice this. The problem with “keep feet on the ground” is that in today’s market, eventually the ground will shift, thereby toppling whoever has remained standing. Long-term survival requires change and a rejection of the comfort that comes with a static existence.
Reaching for the stars, on the other hand, evokes change and novelty. It is the novelty of change that is attractive and often a temptation for CEOs who jump at the chance to adopt a novel position without adequate thought regarding the hidden dangers, the implications to the company, and the costs involved in change. A CEO who gravitates toward change and dynamic and rapid evolution would do well to examine the lessons of change management history, adopt the “Dos,” and avoid the “Don’ts.”
Change, in the venerable words of Kasey Kasem, is about the balance between the static and the dynamic. A company must “reach,” but at the same time reach wisely so that the success and know-how of past accomplishment is preserved. You now know how to fail at change management, now go forward and seek to succeed.
Jurevicius, O. 2013. “McKinsey 7S Model.” Strategic Management Insight. https://strategicmanagementinsight.com/tools/mckinsey-7s-model
-framework.html (accessed December 12, 2019).
Lewin, K. 1947. “Frontiers in Group Dynamics: II. Channels of Group Life; Social Planning and Action Research.” Human Relations 1, no. 2, pp. 143–153. doi: 10.1177/001872674700100201
McGrath, M. E., and M. N. Romeri. 1994. “The R&D Effectiveness Index: A Metric for Product Development Performance.” Journal of Product Innovation Management 11, no. 3, pp. 213–220.
Prosci (2019). ADKAR Change Management Model Overview: Prosci. Retrieved from https://www.prosci.com/adkar/adkar-model (accessed 19th December 2019).
Senge, P. M. 1997. “The Fifth Discipline.” Measuring Business Excellence 1, no. 3, pp. 46–51.