model Edgard change, which was first published by Prosci in 1998. Prosci is a recognized leader in business process and change management research design, which the largest provider in the world to manage change and re-comparison tools and information engineering.
Research shows Prosci himself that the problems with the people dimension of change is the most common reason for the failure of the project.
In the area of change management and study after study shows that 70% of all business initiatives where there is a large element of change [which is virtually all of them!] failed to achieve the desired benefits.
Summary and model who Edgard
It is based on two basic ideas:
(1) There are some people who change, not organizations.
(2) Successful change occurs when the singles matches stages of organizational change change.
to change a successful occur at the individual level, people need to move through each of these stages:
- recognize the need for change
- the desire to perform change happens
- knowledge about how to change
- the ability to perform the skills and behaviors of the new
- reinforcement to keep the change as soon as the [1945004scored
to change the organization to be successful, these individual changes need to progress in or near the same rate of progress through the commercial dimension of the change.
Prosci identify business change dimension as these elements include a pilot project:
- is determined by business need or opportunity
- known project (scope and objectives)
- Business solution design ( new processes, systems and organizational structure)
- is the development of processes and new systems
- is implemented the solution in the organization
evaluating model AKBAR
there are two completely different streams of thought that have shaped the practice of change management.
(1) engineer approach to improving the business with a focus on business processes.
(2) psychology approach to understanding human responses to change, with a focus on people.
and was the largest single cause of the high staggering failure rate of 70% of all change business initiatives excessive focus on the process rather than the people - not to take full account of the impact of the change on those people who are most affected by it.
close alliance for this reason is the lack of a process to address directly the humanitarian aspects of change.
from my point of view reflects the model Edgard that against the background of the review of Prosci and approaching the engineers to improve the business, and this is quite clear in the language and tone of the described model and with its focus on the management and operation alone.
clear strength of this model is the one who provides a list of useful management of the transitional stages of reference.
weakness, in my opinion, are as follows, and the model Edgard which:
(1) the failure to distinguish between " gradual change" and "step change"
if the change involves any of the following factors then you will definitely need to be handled as a "step change" and treated as a specific initiative outside the business as usual. Factors are: the complexity and size, scope and priority.
Edgard model which is, in my opinion, commensurate with the gradual change, a reference effective management. But it lacks quite a lot to be fully effective in a step change initiative.
(2) non-discrimination between roles and leadership positions as well as the management of
while the very definitions of change and management of the management of projects and programs to emphasize the aspect Administration [and of course this is important] a lot of the reason for the percentage 70% failure in change initiatives and directly attributable to the lack of leadership ... leadership that sees the bigger picture - to ensure that people will follow - and discipline in the program management approach that provides the tools and processes to facilitate this.
need to change the move, which will be led initiative - and it needs to be seen to be led.
(3) ignoring the need for the leadership of to deal with the emotional dimension
transition between the single-phase model Edgard that - awareness of the need for change and phase two - the desire to participate in and support the change can be huge - especially in a step change.
one of the key points that make William Bridges in his book "by switching" is that the transition is not the same as change. Change is what happens to you. Jump is what you experience.
a lot of thought leaders in the world to manage change and lead change now talking noisily about the importance of the emotional dimension of leadership, and the need to address the humanitarian dimension of the change.
To summarize, the words bridges "special:" Change can only work if the people affected by it can get through the transition causes successfully "
(4) not to see the macro management program level
3-5 steps of the model AKBAR about to learn how to change, and the ability to implement change and consolidation - make change stick, these are all related to one of the largest re-implementation of the change - which boils down to the issues of: translate vision and strategy into actionable steps.
traditional project referred to by model AKBAR - seen as a set of tasks which, if carried out successfully get a result approach . in other words, have a typical approach that has failed so consistently and spectacularly over the past 20 years.
and there is an important difference between the micro-level perspectives on macroeconomic management of change - and who failed AKBAR recognition.
at the macro level, the root cause of this is the lack of clarity and lack of communication about the aspects people how to change management - and even more fundamental - the lack of a language and framework contextual to articulate and manage the necessary processes of change that will work for the people. At this level, a large part of the solution to this lies in the recruitment of program management approach to change, and this is because it is comprehensive and takes much more into account the many dimensions ignored by a narrow range of project management led approach.
At the micro level, and provide strategy and change the culture requires a hands-on detailed management - micro management on occasions - in the details of how to do this - especially during the early stages. Even in this operational level you need to enable and support for the development of capabilities to deliver your strategy and become what you want them to become [or as close to that as is realistically possible] people.
0 Komentar