Technology and Change Management

Brenda Kearns more for less and pressure from

School of Computing, management to improve their
Dublin Institute of Technology, efficiency, reduce cost and improve
Kevin St., Dublin 8, quality (Collerette et. al, 2002). The
Ireland. implementation of new technology is
Mailto: Brenda.Kearns@comp.dit.ie often central to achieving these goals.
Legacy systems can become inefficient
Abstract and too costly to maintain as compared
with modern technological solutions
The only thing that remains constant in
today’s business environment is change.
(Bergey et al, 1999). The advent of
Pressures to secure competitive new technology requires both new
advantage coupled with new technology technological skills and knowledge
can be problematic unless effectively (Heiss and Jankowsky, 2001). The
managed. This paper discusses the typical reaction to new technology is
reasons for validating change and why
change is vital to the success of an
fear, anxiety and uncertainty in the
organisation. Resistance to change is form of resistance to the change
shown to be the greatest obstacle to (Trader-Leigh, 2002). Resistance to
change. The paper illustrates how models change is accepted as a natural
such as the ADKAR and the Diffusion of reaction. It is however is cited as one
Innovations can be used to explain users’
reactions. In order to implement
of the major obstacles facing
technological change successfully within organisations when trying to
organisations, the proposed users must implement change (Prosci, 2002).
see the benefit of the proposed system Employees fear and resist change for a
and the inadequacies of the current variety of reasons, fear of redundancy,
system. The paper discusses the
technology acceptance model and
fear of extra work and others which are
proposes that the use of effective change detailed in section 3.2 (Trader-Leigh,
management techniques can increase 2002). It was found that management
users’ attitude towards using the proposed who rationalise away such concerns
system. Communication was found to be generate an instinctual protective
fundamental to successfully achieving this.
reaction (Born, 1995). Change
Keywords: Change, management, management helps to guard against
technology acceptance, AKDAR, business over simplification of employee
process remodelling, resistance concerns. Change management is the
process, tools and techniques to
1 Introduction effectively manage people and the
In today’s turbulent business associated human resource issues that
environment, the only thing that surface when implementing change
appears to remain constant is change. (Prosci, 2002).
Social, economic, competitive and
technical pressures are forcing Research carried out by Fred Davis
delivered the Technology Acceptance
organisations to rethink and reengineer
the way they provide their service Model; a tool that aims to isolate
(Collerette et. al, 2002). These factors which most affect the
pressures can originate from internalintegration of new technology in an
and external sources; pressure from organisation and is used to predict user
competitors and customers to provide acceptance of technological systems
and applications. This paper focuses on
____________________________________________________________________
 Technology and Change Management - Brenda Kearns
reengineering the TAM to account for
change and proposes that using
effective change management on the
external variables that influence a
user’s perception of a system can
increase the level of acceptance. The
author proposes that lessons learned
from the top ten reasons for BPR
failure coupled with ITIL (IT
Infrastructural Library) best practices
provide a good change management
framework. The top ten reasons for
BPR failure are described in section
3.3 and can be used as lessons learned
and as such, act as inputs to the change
management process. The culture,
pressures and reasons for change differ
from one organisation to another
(Kotter, 1995). This paper aims to
highlight mistakes made by
organisations and suggest methods and
best practices to avoid repeating them.
This paper is of interest to managers
facing organisation or technological
change. It aims to offer guidance and
advice on models and methods that are
available to help manage the change
process.
2 The Need for Change
Management
Successful organisations do not stand
still (ITIL, 1999). Changes in the
business environment, advances in
technology, changing expectations of
staff are only a few of the pressures
which force continuing change in an
organisation (ITIL, 1999). There are
many possible starting points for a
change programme. Change can be
internally driven or externally driven.
Paulk (1999) refers to these as “push”
and “pull” change factors respectively.
Internally driven change is initiated
when the organisation develops a new
process or technology and “pushes” it
into use to gain competitive advantage.
Externally driven change generally
originates from customer demands,
arising from requirements for a better
service (Paulk, 1999). In the public
sector, new government initiatives and
legislative changes together with
continuing pressures on resources are
forcing public sector bodies to consider
radical change as a way of life (ITIL,
1999). The basic goal is the same, to
make fundamental changes in how
business is conducted in order to cope
with a more challenging market
(Kotter, 1995).
2.1 Drivers of Change
Organisational change is generally
related to Information Technology
(ITIL, 1999) and can take many forms,
changes may occur in for example:
Service delivery – the
development of new types of
services to customers including
those based on new
technologies and
communications facilities, this
might be an organisations
response to changing customer
needs and market trends; the
business need to compete on
the same level as its
competitors (BS1400-2, 2003)
Business processes –
reengineering a business
process to use new technology
for financial gain (Hammer,
1990), this might be classified
as a “push” change factor if the
organisation is reacting to its
competitors and wants to gain
competitive advantage.
People systems – changes in
roles, responsibilities and
working relationships;
requirements for retraining
based on new technologies.
Structures and facilities –
establishment of new
organisations, agencies and
partnerships to facilitate the
2
 Technology and Change Management - Brenda Kearns

development and delivery of IT

facilities. This type of change A workers strike can be due to pressure
might be an organisations from employees for better pay or
response to changing customer working conditions. Examining the
needs model, it can be shown that this change
Technologies – the in the HR Development area can exert
implementation of new IT change on all other areas – Efficiency
infrastructures to support and Productivity, Preservation and
internal and external stability and Innovation Growth and
communications and change. In the case of a workers strike,
information sharing for productivity and efficiency will drop,
competitive advantage. this will have an effect on the stability
Technological change can be and preservation of the company as the
driven both internally and service that is usually provided by the
externally. Heiss and striking sector is no longer available.
Jankowsky (2001) point out
however that establishing or
reengineering processes to link
technology resources and
company objectives is a major
challenge (Heiss and
Jankowsky, 2001).

Effecting any change in the

organisation can be problematic
(Morton, 1992). Figure 2.1 illustrates
the drivers and pressures for change
and stability. This model is used as a Figure 2.1 Drivers for Stability and Change
(ITIL, 1999)
basis for identifying the likely impacts
of changes (ITIL, 1999).
Looking at the example of a workers
strike again, it is often the case that
The model in Figure 2.1 shows that the
workers go on strike because of the
drivers for change and stability can be
introduction of new technology to an
divided into four distinct areas
1. Human Resource Development 

organisation. The Irish postal service
recently invested more than
2. Efficiency and Productivity
million in new mail sorting systems in
3. Preservation and Stability
an effort to improve the postal service
4. Innovation Growth and change
and reduce overheads. Resistance to
this change resulted in a two week
Drivers for change and stability in the
postal strike and the suspension of nine
HR Development area can include
postal van drivers (An Post, 2004). The
pressure from empowerment of staff
effects of this type of change arise
for career development, better working
from the Productivity and Efficiency
conditions or increased pay. Pressure
area. The organisation needs to be able
from the management to maintain
to:
morale and cohesion yet motivate and
respond to pressures on
develop staff. The model in Figure 2.1
resources
illustrates that the four areas exert
improve the organisations
pressure for change and stability both
performance
directly and indirectly on each other.
increase productivity

3
 Technology and Change Management - Brenda Kearns
increase quality and
efficiencies while lowering
costs
In the case of An Post, they introduced
new technology to address the
Productivity and Efficiency need of the
organisation. The introduction of new
technology comes under the area of
Innovation, Growth and Change, i.e.
the drivers and pressures of an
organisation to adapt, reshape and
respond to pressures from customers
for improved service delivery.
Introducing new technology without
use of proper change management
practices can cause instability in the
organisation. Applying the theory of
the model in Figure 2.1 to the
problems experienced by An Post
shows that the organisation needed to
increase productivity and efficiency
which resulted in pressure for
Innovation, Growth and change. The
introduction of the new sorting system
exerted change on the HR
Development area. The postal workers
resisted the change and exerted
pressure on the organisation in the
form of a strike for the preservation of
the status quo. Pressures arising from
the HR Development area resulted in a
decrease in the Productivity and
Efficiency.
The model depicted in Figure 2.1
echoes the findings of Scott Morton’s
MIT90’s framework (Morton, 1991)
illustrated in Figure 2.2 which
demonstrates that organisations are
complex systems of people, structures,
technology, culture, processes and
management operating in an
environment which is itself complex
and constantly changing. The MIT90’s
framework reinforces the theory that a
change in any one of these elements
can have repercussions elsewhere, and
the unintended consequences of even
minor changes can, in the worst case,
destabilise the whole change effort
(Morton, 1991).
The management of change is a
complex undertaking; the complexity
arises from the systematic or ‘holistic’
nature of organisational change. As
soon as the organisation moves beyond
very simple changes, it needs to take
account of a variety of inter-related
factors which can make the
management of change a complex
requirement (ITIL, 1999). The MIT90s
framework illustrates this complexity.
This framework represents the
complexity as a set of five forces in
dynamic equilibrium perpetually
striving for stability (Morton, 1991).
Figure 2.2 MIT90's Framework (Scott
Morton, 1991)
Strategy – the high-level goals
and business objectives of the
organisation
Structure – the functions of the
organisation, the way in which
they are grouped and structured
in order to meet the business
objectives
Management processes – the
management policies,
procedures, information flows
and facilities for business
4
 Technology and Change Management - Brenda Kearns
planning and the exercise of
control in the organisation.
Individuals and roles – the roles
and activities of individual
members of the organisation,
their skills and motivation and
the tools they use to accomplish
their assigned tasks
Technology – the technologies
used by the organisation, in
particular the information
Technologies supporting the
business processes.
Morton’s framework identifies that an
organisation is also subjected to
influences from its external
environment to which it must respond.
Both the internal forces in the
organisation and the external
environment change through time and
the changes in any one area will have
implications for the other areas
(Morton, 1991). The complexity and
interrelatedness of these areas
highlight the need for dedicated
management of the change process, if
nobody is responsible for ensuring that
an intended change takes place, the
change effort will not reach fulfilment
(ITIL, 2000). IT implementation
projects are frequent in companies but
experience shows that they involve
significant change management
problems and often entail losses which
amount to some 100 billion dollars per
year (Lientz and Rea, 1998).
The models, The Drivers for Change
and Stability and The MIT90’s
Framework depicted in Figures 2.1 and
2.2 respectively, both demonstrate the
complexity of implementing change on
any area. The MIT90’s framework
posits that the drivers and pressures are
always ongoing. Section 3 will focus
on the need for change management
when implementing new technological
solutions and discuss the people issues
encountered during this type of
change.
3 Technology and Change
Management
Technological change is taking place
all around us (Hammer, 1990; Kotter,
1995; Davis, 1989) from major
technological change such as the
development of complex robots
capable of exploring far reaching
planets of our solar system to minor
changes in administrative procedures
at work (ITIL, 1999). The rate of
change of technology means that the
technology used by any organisation is
in a constant state of flux (Buchanan,
and Huczynski, 1985); each generation
of business application and IT
infrastructure is superseded by the next
wave of developments (ITIL, 1999).
Advances in technology bring potential
benefits and risks, which are not
always easy to predict (UNDP, 2001).
In 1973, the US Defence Advanced
Research Projects Agency (DARPA)
initiated a research program to
investigate techniques and
technologies for interlinking packet
networks. This project became known
as the “Internetting Project” (ISOC,
2001).
In 1973, the advantages of the Internet
as we know it today were unknown. It
has since brought us advantages such
as global purchasing power at our
desktop, an “information super-
highway”, a valuable research tool.
Being unable to foresee the
advantages, it was impossible to
foresee the disadvantages, for example,
accessibility and dissemination of
illegal pornographic images, exposure
to dangerous and illegal information
facilitating international crime and
supporting drug trade networks, and a
continued battle against software
viruses and cyber attacks. These are
just some examples of the unforeseen
directions that technology can take us.
5
 Technology and Change Management - Brenda Kearns
Today’s technological transformations
are intertwined with globalisation, and
together they have created, the network
age (UNDP, 2001). The network age
had brought with it new opportunities
and increased social and economic
rewards from creating and using
technology. Technology is not
inherently good or bad, however, the
value of technology depends on how it
is used (UNDP, 2001). It is in any
organisations best interest to adapt and
grow with technological change,
however, the rate of change of
technology is not going to slow down
anytime soon (Kotter, 1996) and as
such needs to be managed. The
strategic management of technology
involves the top team in making a
commitment to certain goals, analysing
the organisations performance in
relation to its technologies and future
prospects and producing a vision and a
mission statement (Anderson et al.,
1997). There is constant pressure for
organisations are forever being pushed
to reduce costs, improve the quality of
products and services, locate new
opportunities for growth and increase
Figure 3.1 The Technology Acceptance Model, (Davis, 1989)
productivity and in order to facilitate
these needs and requirements, adapting
to technological change is a must
(Kotter, 1996). In order to adapt and
grow with advancements in
technology, the proposed solutions
must be accepted and adopted. Section
2.1 will discuss methods that can help
organisations gauge the adoption and
of proposed new technology.
3.1 Accepting Technology
Figure 3.1 shows the Technology
Acceptance Model (TAM), first
introduced by Fred D. Davis in 1986 as
part of his doctorial dissertation
(Davis, 1989). The TAM aims to
isolate factors which most affect the
integration of new technology into an
organization and is used to predict,
explain and increase user acceptance of
technological systems and applications
and to understand why end-users can
reject the use of new technological
solutions. The TAM focuses on two
major characteristics of a system or
software application
6
 i. Perceived Ease of Use (EOU)
is defined as “the degree to
which a person believes that
using a particular system
would be free of effort”
Behavioural Intention (BI) as
defined by Davis (1989) is “the
measure of strength of ones
intention to perform a specified
behaviour”.

ii. Perceived Usefulness (U) is
defined as “the degree to which
a person believes that using a
particular system would
enhance their performance”`
TAM also regards that EOU has a
direct effect on U and U has a direct on
BI which is illustrated in Figure 3.1 as
having a direct impact on the Actual
System Use.

The diagram in Figure 3.1 shows that Examination of the TAM shows that
EOU and U are influenced by external the root cause for the non-acceptance
variables, some examples might be: of a technological system or
a users experience of the application is the impact of the
current system and fear of external variables on its potential
redundancy users. The probability that a system
popular opinions to the new will be accepted and used can be
implementation, both positive increased by focusing and acting on
and negative and the factors that influence users’
pressure from workers unions perception of a system (Collerette et.
age – users feeling they are too al, 2002).
old to learn (Collerette et. al,
2002)
The Human Development Report 2001
TAM posits that the two (UNDP, 2001) lists three reasons for
characteristics, EOU and U results in supporting the adoption of new
the potential users attitude towards technology:
using the proposed system or 1. Potential benefits, where the
application (Davis, 1989). expected benefits are at least as
great as the risks
Attitude Towards Using (A) as 2. Costs of inertia versus costs of
defined by Davis (1989) is “an change, where new
individual’s positive or technologies improve on those
negative feeling about they replace
performing the target 3. Means of managing risks,
behaviour” where potential harms can be
managed and their likelihood
A user’s behavioural intention or BI is reduced through systematic
a person’s subjective probability that scientific research
they will perform some behaviour
(Ajzen and Fishbein, 1967) and is While the reasons listed above are
determined by the users’ attitude to the
valid from a managerial point of view,
proposed system. In terms of it remains difficult to convince workers
technology acceptance, BI can be a of the need for technological change
potential user’s intention ‘to use’ or
(Kotter, 1995). People react in
intention ‘not to use’ a proposed different ways to change, some
system embrace change, some pine for the old
days of clearly defined roles and
____________________________________________________________________
 Technology and Change Management - Brenda Kearns
responsibilities (Fender, 2004). Born
suggests that in a typical BPR project
under 33% of the design effort should
concentrate on technologies and
ideally over 2/3’s or more should deal
with people issues (Born, 1995). The
introduction of any technological
solution is synonymous with change
(Kuruppuarachchi, 2000). This paper
proposes that using Davis’s TAM
together with change management
techniques coupled with the lessons
learned form the most common reasons
for Business Process Remodelling
failure, it may be possible to enhance a
user’s perception of a proposed system
and generate a positive attitude toward
using it. In theory, this will result in a
positive behavioural intention towards
using the proposed technological
solution (PTS).
Figure 3.2 illustrates a proposed
reengineering of the TAM to account
for system migration; it resembles the
notion of Lewin’s 3-Step model of:
1. Unfreezing – overcoming the
habits and inertia of an
organisation
2. Moving – making the change to
the new system
3. Refreezing – making the
changes last (Lewin,
1947).
Figure 3.2 illustrates the change
process using a traffic light analogy:
1. Red: Stop usage of current
technology solution
2. Amber: The transition period
between the old system and the
new system.
3. Green: Go, if the way is clear,
i.e. implement the proposed
solution so long as the
environment and Human
Resources are ready to accept
it.
Change management is central to the
process of making the transition from
old system to new and change
management practices should be
employed throughout the transition
(ITIL, 1999). The need for change, the
progress of the project and the benefits
of change should be communicated
effectively throughout the change
project.
8
 Figure 3.2 TAM Traffic Light Model (Author, 2004)
The Current Technological Solution
(CTS) exhibits similar variables
identified by the TAM:
BI(c): Behavioural Intention
towards using the current
solution
A(c): Attitude towards using
the current technological
solution
U(c): Perceived Usefulness of
the current technological
solution
EOU(c): Perceived Ease of Use
of the current technological
solution
The Proposed Technological Solution
(PTS) also exhibits similar variables
identified by the TAM:
BI(p): Behavioural Intention
towards using the proposed
solution
A(p): Attitude towards using
the proposed technological
solution
____________________________________________________________________
U(p): Perceived Usefulness of
the proposed technological
solution
EOU(p): Perceived Ease of Use
of the proposed technological
solution
The introduction of new technological
solutions is often met with resistance.
Resistance to change can be regarded
as an external variable, in which case
will have a direct effect on U and EOU
(Davis, 1989). Francis Patrick (2001)
proposes that the champion of change
may perceive what the audience for
change considers as careful assessment
and scrutiny as resistance to change
(Patrick, 2001) however, the human
factors involved in change is cited as a
major obstacle (Collerette et. al, 2002).
To overcome the obstacle of
“resistance to change”, it is necessary
to achieve “buy-in” from perspective
users of the system and the likelihood
of achieving “buy-in” is enhanced with
the effective use of change
management.
 Technology and Change Management - Brenda Kearns
Change management is required
through out the duration of the change
project. The main focus should be to
understand the existing culture and
skills set and communicate the new
vision and plan for the future (Born,
1995). The Traffic Light TAM model
is proposed as a visual aid to highlight
the existence of acceptance variables in
both technological solutions. Paying
attention to common BPR pitfalls and
utilizing change management models
such as the ADKAR model aims to
positively increase the value of the
variable BI(p) while at the same time
decrease the value of the variable
BI(c).
The following sections will discuss
resistance to change and the main BPR
pitfalls and examine the ADKAR
model as one method of overcoming
resistance to change.
3.2 Overcoming Resistance to
Change
It is widely assumed that resistance to
change is a common and natural
phenomenon (Buchanan and
Huczynski, 1985). Initiating change is
a competitive and often hostile activity
(Lindblom, 1994). Major technological
changes or innovations can anticipate
resistance, especially when proposed
changes alter values and visions related
to existing order (Trader-Leigh, 2002).
Trader-Leigh (2002) likens it to “a
kind of warfare” and notes that anyone
who wants change has to overcome
massive inertia. Technological change
that satisfies one group of people can
often reduce the satisfaction of other
groups. (Trader-Leigh, 2002; Morton,
1991, ITIL, 1999), Lindblom (1994)
believes that change ordinarily benefits
some people by injuring others.
Lindblom (1994) observed that the best
way to block change is to render
people unaware of the possibilities. He
notes that dominant stakeholders use
this tactic to misrepresent the change
efforts and present an enhanced view
of the status quo.
A stakeholder is defined as an
individual or group of individuals such
as employees, directors, shareholders,
service providers, consultants, external
organisations who have an interest in
the change whether through their
involvement with the change or
because they will be affected by its
outcome (ITIL, 1999).
Lindblom (1994) also identifies that
because these stakeholders are
dominant and powerful, they can
communicate and in other ways
influence the thinking of significant
number of others and as a result,
change is resisted more successfully
that it is initiated because its opponents
are so powerful and so many
(Lindblom, 1994). Management alone
have the overall view and the ability to
communicate it correctly to the
organisation. Lack of proper
communication empowers those
stakeholders who want to resist the
change (ITIL, 2000) and this resistance
to change undermines the change effort
(Trader-Leigh, 2002). Trader-Leigh
(2002) identifies six key resistance
forces to organisational change listed
below. These key forces are also valid
when applied to technological change:
1. Self-interest
Stakeholders seek to protect a
status quo with which they are
content and which they see as
advantageous to them in some way.
They develop vested interests in
the perpetuation of particular
organisation structures and
accompanying technologies.
Changes can disturb relationships
and arrangements that have taken
much time and effort to establish.
10
 Technology and Change Management - Brenda Kearns

Typical questions proposed users capable of developing the new

of a new technological solution skills and behaviours that the new
might ask: technological solution may
demand.
Will there be extra work
involved? 3. Tyranny of custom
Will it be beneficial to me The despotism of custom can
personally? inhibit change (Trader-Leigh,
What are the rewards of 2002). Lack of proper
using the proposed system? communication and information
Is it easy to use? about the change can cause
Will there be redundancies? confusion and a desire to maintain
the status quo (ITIL, 2000) and
Bedeian (1983) believed that those in power often feel they have
people invest time, effort and more to loose with upheaval of the
commitment in programmes, status quo.
systems procedures and
technologies to make them work, 4. Redistributive effects
and these individuals may identify This factor addresses the
themselves more closely with their perceptions of loss of control and
specific function or role rather than loss of funding. The costs of
with the organisation as a whole. implementation and integration can
bleed finances from other
2. Psychological impact departments causing cutbacks,
Fear of redundancy. Technological downsizing and redistribution of
change is often implemented to funds, this is also used as an
automate processes and can often opportunity to prune back middle
be used to downsize or cut back on management; resulting in loss of
overtime hours (Hammer, 1990). control (Hammer, 1995). Middle
management often resists change
The threat to the existing for this reason.
professional expertise can cause
huge psychological impact (Trader- 5. Destabilisation effects
Leigh, 2002). Employees who have The introduction of new
in-depth knowledge of the current technology can cause
system can feel that their skills and destabilisation. Often legacy
expertise will become redundant. technology may need to run in
Middle aged programmers often parallel with the new system which
feel betrayed having given many can sometimes lead to data
years of service to a company that corruption and inconsistencies if
they then find they have missed out not properly managed.
on several technological trends and Precipitating change can cause
feel it is too late to catch up (Smith, destabilisation because
2001). management resources are spread
too thinly (Bowman, 1990).
Bedeian (1983) points out that
change requires people to think and
behave in different ways which can
result in self-doubt. Individuals
may fear that they will not be

11
 Technology and Change Management - Brenda Kearns
6. Culture compatibility
The introduction of new
technological solutions can lead to
new principles of participation for
example, accountability and
responsibility, having more
customer focused approach. Such
principles may conflict with
bureaucratic structures and can be
met with hostility. Workers will
demand compensation for any
extras they perceive the change
will bring about that upsets the
existing culture (Trader-Leigh,
2002).
To control resistance to change, it is
important to manage the people aspects
of change program. Quite often
managers focus on the business
dimension of change, the business
need for change, the scope of the
project, the processes that require
reengineering and the implementation
of the solution (Prosci, 2004). The
people dimension of change is how the
employees experience and react to the
change process (Prosci, 2002) and is
commonly cited as a major reason for
project failure (Hammer, 1990; Prosci,
2002; Kotter, 1995; Bergy et. al,
1999). The ADKAR model is a
management tool that can be used to
diagnose employee resistance, help
those employees through the change
process and create a change
management plan for them (Prosci,
2002). ADKAR is an acronym for
Awareness, Desire, Knowledge,
Ability and Reinforcement. ADKAR
was developed by Prosci who
conducted research on more than 700
companies undergoing major change
projects (Prosci, 2002). The model
proposes that employees must go
through the five stages (ADKAR) in
order to change. The model examines
the “readiness” of the employees at
each step and enables management to
develop a plan to induce readiness
(Prosci, 2002).
Table 3 illustrates the five key phases
that form the basis of the ADKAR
model and the management activities
or other catalysts that enables
employees to move from one phase to
another. It is recommended that the
phases occur in order and a level of
comfort be reached at each phase for
change to succeed (Bocklund, 2002).
The first step the ADKAR model
identifies is awareness. In order to
generate awareness of the need for
change in an organisation, there must
be effective communication on the
need for change (Kotter, 1995). Kotter
(1995) noted that the most successful
change efforts start with effective
communication on the potential crises
that could occur should the status quo
remain in place. He suggests
management should employ dramatic
communication on the need for change
on a broad scale, paying special
attention to the potential crisis situation
that could develop without change.
Kotter (1995) found that over 50% of
companies failed at this stage where
management grew tired and impatient
of the preliminaries and wanted change
implemented as soon as technically
possible. This communication effort is
a motivational exercise and is aimed at
gaining the support and understanding
of the workforce. Failure to
communicate the business needs for
change will empower the informal
leaders to communicate their
perspective on the need for change
with all the dangers that implies
(Collerette et. al, 2002).
12
 Technology and Change Management - Brenda Kearns

Steps Enablers
Management communications
Customer input
A Awareness of the need for change Marketplace changes
Ready-Access to information
Fear of job loss
Discontent with current state
Imminent negative consequences
Enhanced Job Security
Affiliation and sense of belonging
D Desire to participate and support the
change
Career advancement
Acquisition of power or position
Incentive or compensation
Trust and respect for leadership
Hope in future state
Training and education
K Knowledge on how to change Information access
Examples and role models

Practice applying new skills or new

processes and tools
A Ability to implement required skills Coaching
and behaviours Mentoring
Removal of barriers
Incentives and rewards
Compensation changes
R Reinforcement to sustain the change Celebrations
Personal recognition

Table 3.1 The ADKAR Model (Prosci, 2000; Modified by Author)

Kotter (1995) found that despite putting compensation will enhance

effort into communication via newsletters
and speeches, senior executives continued
to behave in ways antithetical to the vision
for change. One of the biggest mistakes a
top sponsor can make is sending
inconsistent signals or not communicating
enough; dictating change without
communicating the benefits (Prosci,
2003). Communication covers both words
and deeds and the latter is often the most
powerful form (Kotter, 1995). Following
awareness for the need to change and
having volleyed support for the need to
change leads to the second phase of
ADKAR, the desire to participate.
Without achieving buy-in to the change
project, there will be no desire to
participate, career advancement, job
security and incentives such as
employees desire to participate
(Prosci, 2003). The process cannot
stop at ‘desire’; employees must
possess knowledge on how to
perform the change and the ability to
change. Again, communication is the
key to successfully imparting
information on how the change
process will occur. Any specialised
training, or skills that might be
required must be provided prior to
implementing the change. Once the
change is implemented, it is
important it stays in place.
Reinforcement of the change is vital
to insure that the change is retained.
Rodgers (1995) theory of ‘Diffusion
of Innovations’ supports the concept

13
 Technology and Change Management - Brenda Kearns

of reinforcement. He introduced the experienced that successful

notion of ‘discontinuance’ where on change efforts developed a
occasion a decision can be made to reject vision of the future that was
an innovation after having previously easy to communicate and
adopted it. His research suggests that an appealing to the workforce.
individual (or decision making unit) 3. Decision occurs when an
passes from first knowledge of an individual engages in
innovation to forming an attitude toward activities that lead to a choice
the innovation, to a decision to adopt or to adopt or reject the
reject, to implementation and use of the innovation.
new idea, and finally to the confirmation 4. Implementation occurs when
of this decision (Rodgers, 1995). His an individual puts an
model reflects the findings of the ADKAR innovation to use.
model. The five stages that Rodgers 5. Confirmation occurs when an
identified are illustrated in individual seeks
. It is worth noting that communication reinforcement of an
plays a large role in the five stages, further innovation-decision already
highlighting the need for effective, made, or reverses a previous
positive, communication to achieve buy- decision to adopt or reject the
in. innovation if exposed to

Communication Channels

Prior Conditions
1. Previous Pracice
2. Felt Needs/Problems i. Knowledge Ii. Persuasion iii. Decision iv. Implementation v. Confirmation
3. Innovativeness
4. Norms of the social
system

Adoption Continued Adoption

Later Adoption
Characteristics of the Perceived Characteristics
Decision Making Unit of the Innovation

1.Socioeconomic characteristics 1. Relative Advantage Discontinuance

2.Personality varialbes 2. Compatibility
3. Communication Behaviour 3. Complexity Rejection Continued Rejection
4. Trialability
5. Observability

conflicting messages about

the innovation. A conscious
1. Knowledge occurs when an attempt to show people how
individual is exposed to an the new approaches,
innovation’s existence and gains behaviours and attitudes have
some understanding of how it helped improved performance
functions. will help anchor the changes
2. Persuasion occurs when an (Kotter, 1995).
individual forms a favourable or
unfavourable attitude toward the Despite the pressure for change and
innovation. Kotter (1995) improvement and best efforts to

14
 Technology and Change Management - Brenda Kearns
change, organisations can fail to maximise
returns on their change efforts. Section 3.3
highlights the top ten reasons for such
failures as identified by Bergey et. al
(1999).
3.3 Business Process
Remodelling and the role of
IT Change Management
A common practice for change
management is the process of migrating
legacy systems to a more desirable target
system (Bergey et al., 1999), this type of
migration often involves ‘Business
Process Remodelling’ (BPR). Michael
Hammer (1990) defined BPR as
“the fundamental rethinking of business
processes to achieve dramatic
improvement in critical contemporary
measures of performance such as cost,
quality, service and speed”.
Interest in BPR grew in the early 90’s as
around this time most of the western
economies were in recession and there
was a desire to reduce the number of
layers of middle management (Hammer,
1990). Davenport reported that BPR
became known as “any attempt to change
how work was done” while to others it
meant a codeword for downsizing
(Davenport et. al, 2003). Information
technology has been central to the
development and implementation of
redesigned processes. BPR is synonymous
with the application of IT however, it has
also been found to be the principal
impediment to the realisation of
redesigned processes (Lyons, 1997). “The
State of Reengineering Survey” found IT
to be a key factor in any change effort; as
a driver, enabler and inhibitor of change.
Respondents cited the advent of new
technologies, and the need to replace
ageing and inadequate information
systems, as key factors driving their
efforts to change how they go to market
and perform work (CSC, 1999).
In the case of migration to a new
system, the legacy system may have
become more difficult to maintain
and as a result, no longer cost
effective (Bergey et. al, 1999). The
speed at which it may perform can be
out performed by new technology
innovations and as such the service
provided can be poor (Hammer,
1990). As such, a transition must be
made from the old legacy system to
newer more advanced system to
withstand competition. This often
results in a change in the business
process and without the proper
change management in place, the
transition from old system to new
system can run into difficulties.
Hammer’s fundamental notion of
reengineering is the obliteration of
outdated rules, assumptions and
processes (Hammer, 1990) however
his earlier rhetoric neglected the
human element of BPR. He believed
that “in reengineering, we carry the
wounded and shoot the stragglers”
however such manifestations lead
employees to fear change but also
fear for their livelihood (Davenport
et. al, 2003). Research carried out by
the Software Engineering Institute in
Carnegie Mellon University
identified the following top ten
reasons for failures in reengineering
efforts (Bergey et al., 1999);
1. Adoption of a flawed or
incomplete reengineering
strategy
2. Inappropriate use of outside
consultants and outside
contractors
3. The work force is tied to old
technologies with inadequate
training programs
4. The organisation does not
have its current system under
control
15
 Technology and Change Management - Brenda Kearns
5. There is too little elicitation and
validation of requirements
6. Software architecture is not a
primary reengineering
consideration
7. There is no notion of a separate
and distinct reengineering process
8. There is inadequate planning or
inadequate resolve to follow the
plans
9. Management lacks long-term
commitment
10. Management predetermines
technical decisions
This paper proposes that the ten reasons
identified in this report can be employed
as the external variables. The application
of change management on these variables
aims to yield a positive value for BI(p); in
its least effective form, one that is greater
than BI(c). The following sections will
expand on the ten reasons for failure
mentioned above and discuss how they
impact the change process.
3.3.1 The adoption of a flawed or
incomplete reengineering
strategy
Most organisations have a long-term
strategy when they embark on a
reengineering effort, however, these
strategies can sometimes be flawed or
incomplete due to poor assumptions or
lack of attention to detail (Bergey et al.,
1999). Placing too much emphasis on the
people-side of change or the steps
involved in achieving the outcome can
result in failure. Hammer (1999)
recommends that BPR should be
organised around outcomes and not tasks.
Kotter believes that there should be a
leading coalition made up of management
and people who have a vision of what the
outcome should be (Kotter, 1995). The
planning stage sets the scope of the
project and roles of the individuals
involved. Without accurate planning the
organisation is taking a risk and venturing
into the unknown. Planning has been
found to be the most important phase
of the change process (Prosci, 2002).
High level strategic choices have
substantial impact on the successes or
failure of a reengineering project.
Just as architectural decisions have
long-lasting impact on the structure
and operation of a system, these early
strategic reengineering decisions are
difficult to change and have
repercussions on the overall
reengineering result (ITIL, 2000).
One example of a flawed strategy is
when an organisation chooses to
“replace” rather than “repair” a major
subsystem while at the same time,
abandoning corporate knowledge
about the legacy system (Bergey et
al., 1999) causing radical
unnecessary change, which is
questionable and risky (Bowman,
1990). However the opposite is also
true, Hammer (1990) noticed that
despite downsizing and automation in
the 1980’s, organisations were failing
to reap the benefits of BPR. Hammer
(1990) attributed this failing to the
automation of outdated processes;
organisations using technology to
speed up a faulty business process
instead of reengineering them. He
proposed that it is only by radically
redesigning business processes that
organisations can achieve great
improvement in their performances.
An example of an incomplete
strategy might be lack of strategic
foresight; embarking on a
reengineering process without the
provision of adequate resources, be
they time, people or money (Prosci,
2004). Bergy et al., (1999)
recommends that the inputs driving
the reengineering decision analysis
should always include:
1. The strategic issues: the value
of the effort, the corporate
impact and the timing.
16
 Technology and Change Management - Brenda Kearns
2. Programmatic issues: resources,
priorities, deliverables, schedule
and risk
3. Technical issues: the feasibility,
approach, architecture, tools and
risk.
4. Economic issues: the cost,
make/buy decisions and ROI.
The ITIL suggest that organisations
should use a four stage change process
model illustrated in Figure 3.4 as a
framework for managing change. It
demonstrates a cycle of change stimulated
by a specific initial activity in which
initial diagnosis leads to the planning and
implementation of a change effort,
followed by a review of the outcome. The
ITIL consider that the results of the
review combined with the impact of other
changes in the organisation and external
developments will eventually give rise to
a further round of diagnosis leading to
another cycle of change (ITIL, 1999), the
BS1500-2 (2003) reaffirm this idea with
their implementation of the PDCA (Plan,
Do, Check, Act) cycle.
Plan for improvements,
Do implement the change/service
management and provide the
services,
Check by monitoring, measuring
and reviewing and
Act on continuously improving it
(BS15000-2, 2003).
This cycle of change however assumes no
sequential order as it will involve iteration
and backtracking, negotiation and
experimentation; critical mistakes in any
of the phases can have a devastating
impact and negate any hard won
achievements (Kotter, 1995). Planning for
change must allow for the uncertainties
inherent in the change process (ITIL,
1999) and should ensure that any change
plans include plans for a back-out strategy
in the event of serious unforeseen
problems (ITIL, 2000).
Figure 3.4 Four Stage Change Process
Model (ITIL, 1999)
The change process goes through a
series of phases that in total require a
considerable length of time, skipping
steps can create an illusion of speed
however never achieves satisfying
results (Kotter, 1995).
3.3.2 Inappropriate use of
outside consultants
Bergy et. al (1999) discovered that
organisations can hire unsuitable
consultants who seem to be better at
marketing themselves than
accomplishing what is needed. Many
organisations were found to
relinquish too much control to
contractors and often without the
sufficient ‘insider’ knowledge of the
organisation, consultants made
misinformed decisions with critical
consequences. Bergy et. al (1999)
also noted that when even when
problems were identified and raised,
inertia in the organisation resulted in
no action being taken to remedy the
situation. As a cost cutting measure,
organisations often do not give
consultants enough time to do an
adequate job. From their research,
Bergy et. al (1999) advise
organisations to understand the
desired skills of the consultant and
what role they expect them to play.
The value of consultants’ lies in them
being used effectively to provide an
17
 Technology and Change Management - Brenda Kearns
unbiased evaluation of a situation. Some
of the more rewarding roles they found
consultants played were:
1. To act as the team leader or key
facilitator within the reengineering
team.
2. To provide and/or coordinate the
training of team members.
3. To provide specific and detailed IT
or technical systems advice and
expertise.
More than three-quarters of companies
that used consultants in this way rated the
consultants’ effectiveness excellent or
very good, and more than three-quarters
of organizations cited the consultants’
influence as critical or very critical to the
project’s success (Bergy et. al, 1999).
3.3.3 The work force is tied to old
technologies with inadequate
training programs
At the heart of change management lies
the change problem that is for some future
state to be realised, some current state
must be left behind (Nichols, 2004). Re-
engineering efforts in most cases take
advantage of newer technology as
opposed to the legacy system. The culture
can be dependent on maintaining status
quo. A culture can develop around the
maintenance of old systems and that
coupled with an aging work force that
would rather not learn creates resistance to
any change. They have become extremely
familiar with the legacy system and would
prefer to continue to maintain it, often
reaping the personal monetary rewards of
overtime (Smith, 2001). Heiss and
Jankowsky (2001) note the change
process is not only effecting the
technology but also the technological
knowledge and it is widely accepted that
people fear such change as they perceive
their own knowledge will become
redundant.
It is not possible to continue to do
business while at the same time bring
the same workforce up to speed on
the new technologies. Either there
must be a conscientious and
persistent effort to upgrade skills of
the existing work force, or there must
be a replacement of the existing work
force, or there must be new workers
added to the workforce or some
combination of all three (Smith,
2001). Don Jones (2004) reports that
organisation cite lack of available
funds and time as reasons not to train
staff and some MIS managers found
it easier to gain budget for
maintenance rather than
reengineering (Smith, 2001).
3.3.4 The organisation does not
have its legacy system
under control
Configuration management provides
a logical model of the infrastructure
or service by identifying, controlling,
maintaining and verifying the
versions of configuration items in
existence. Configuration
management provides accurate
information on configurations and
their documentation (ITIL, 2000).
Without such documentation,
information about a given system can
be inaccurate and hearsay and as
such, changes made can be
unpredictable and perilous.
Configuration management of the
legacy system should be in place to
aid disciplined evolution. The system
needs to be well documented, with an
understanding of the priority of
change requests and their impact on
the system, without this in place
affecting any change can lead to
unknowns and often disaster (Bergy
et. al 1999).
Research found that legacy systems
are often not under control due to
poor documentation, inadequate
18
 Technology and Change Management - Brenda Kearns
change control processes and inadequate
historical measurements. This includes
changes that have been made, costs of the
changes and problem areas that occurred.
A Configuration Management DataBase
(CMDB) holds the relationships between
all system components such as problems,
known errors, changes and version
releases (ITIL, 2000). Without such data,
it is impossible to make meaningful cost
projections for various classes of changes
to the system, or to be able to plan on any
kind of long term change. Change
requests not having any metrics associated
with them and the necessary historical
configurations are substituted with
guesswork and therefore give no
indication of ease or severity of change
(Bergy et. al 1999).
Bergy et. al (1999) advise that
organisations conduct research into the
costs of maintaining the system versus the
cost of change. It is also advised that
organisations invest time into planning
and constructing a CMDB (ITIL, 2000).
Without any system configuration data the
maintenance effort becomes crippled and
chaotic and long-term planning becomes
chaotic (Bergy et. al 1999).
3.3.5 Too little elicitation and
validation of requirements
Significant flaws in the requirements
elicitation and validation process lead to
BPR failure (Bergy et. al 1999). “Chaos”
a report published by the Standish group
(1997) identified that the three leading
causes for quality and delivery problems
in the software industry were:
1. lack of user input
2. incomplete requirements and
specifications, omitting ‘obvious’
information
3. changing requirement
specifications (Standish Group,
1997 in Olsen and Beeson, 2002)
Olsen and Beeson (1997) identified
three categories of problems that
arose in relation to the elicitation and
validation of requirements:
1. Problems with scope, where
the boundaries are ill defined
and the requirements may
address to much or too little
information.
2. Problems of volatility due to
the changing nature of
requirements
3. Users lack of understanding
of their own needs and the
limitations of computer
systems.
3.3.6 Software architecture is
not a primary
reengineering
consideration
Failure can occur when a methodical
evaluation of the software
architectures of the legacy and target
system is not a driving factor in the
development of the technical
reengineering approach. This
evaluation is crucial to determine
whether the legacy software
architecture is viable as a base for
further development (Bergy et. al
1999). This echoes the viewpoint of
Michael Hammer (1990) who noted
that some organisations reengineer
and build upon process and systems
that are faulty and inconsistent. He
advises to identify and obliterate such
faulty process instead of simply
automating them.
3.3.7 There is no notion of a
separate and distinct
reengineering process
Bergy et. al (1999) regard that the
existence of a documented life cycle
process and corresponding work
products are often wrongly viewed as
being evidence of a sound
19
 Technology and Change Management - Brenda Kearns
reengineering process. There needs to be a
set of tasks and guidance to perform each
step as well as an understanding of how
the entire project fits together. Bergy et. al
(1999) reason that quality people, with
ample resources, employing suitable
technologies rarely produce a quality
product without using a quality process
and identify that the four critical elements
in BPR are; the people, the technology,
the process and the resources available
and should be central to all BPR efforts.
3.3.8 Inadequate planning or
inadequate resolve to follow
the plans
The British Standard 15000 identify the
role of management is to ensure that new
services and changes to services will be
deliverable and manageable at the agreed
cost and service level. The BS15000
advise that when planning for new or
changed services should include
reviewing budgets, staff resources,
existing service levels and the scope of the
service management (BS1500-2, 2003).
Focusing on low-level “software-
problems” while neglecting the
intermediate-level tactical management
planning and systems engineering
planning aspects of the job can cause
projects to get out of kilter. As stated in
section 3.7, there are four critical elements
of a BPR project and focusing on some
neglecting others can result in failure.
Sometimes the vision can be clear, but
there is an inadequate roadmap for getting
from the current system to the proposed
system. The change management team
must develop a greater understanding of
the legacy system, its mission, and the
operational environment it is deployed in.
This requires an understanding of the
users of the system as well as a keen
understanding of the organisations goals
and objectives for reengineering the
system. A documented project plan is
required that can achieve buy-in of the
stakeholders.
Chances of failure increase when:
Management form a plan but
there is no promulgation of
the plan throughout the
organisation.
There is a lack of resources of
implementation of plan.
Failure to provide adequate
people, time or money which
undermines the BPR effort
(Prosci, 2002)
The plans can be incomplete,
‘obvious’ information is
omitted
The plans are changing
frequently
There is unforeseen changes
in personnel or budgets
Change efforts take time and risk
losing momentum if there are no
short term goals to meet and
celebrate (Kotter, 1995). Without
short term wins, people give up or
begin to resist the change. Kotter
suggests that organisations should be
proactive in establishing goals and
objectives and rewarding those
involved with recognition, promotion
or money. Commitments to produce
short term wins also help maintain
the sense of urgency focus of the
project.
3.3.9 Management lacks long
term commitment
Kotter (1995) notes that major
change is impossible unless the head
of the organisation is an active
supporter. Management support of
the project means careful monitoring
control of the direction of the project.
Prosci (2002) reported that the
number one contributor to project
success is strong visible and effective
sponsorship. Effective sponsors are
distinguished as those who:
20
 Technology and Change Management - Brenda Kearns

show active and visible support, 3.3.10 Management

both privately and professionally predetermines technical
ensure that the change remains a decisions
priority
Bergy et. al (1999) discovered that
demonstrate their commitment as a
more often that not, project
role model of change
schedules, costs, and deliverables are
provide compelling justification
dictated by top management
for why the change is happening
decisions. Mandates or edicts issued
communicate a clear
by upper management that
understanding of the goals and
predetermine the technical approach
objectives of the change
or schedule, cost and performance
provide sufficient resources for the
considerations without sufficient
team and project to be successful
project team input or concurrence are
frequently seen to cause
Management commitment is a generic
reengineering failure,
problem that is common to all large-scale
projects, even those outside the domain of
Detailed planning of schedules and
change management. When management
milestones can only be accurately
are not fully committed to a reengineering
determined through careful study of
effort, the project tends to loose focus.
the technical limitations of a system,
BPR projects are likely to fail if:
based on an understanding of the
Management gives all
system, historical data and
responsibility to lower level
knowledge of that specific skill.
managers or outsiders, the will
Bergy et. al (1999) found this to be
tend to take the project in different
one of the most prevalent causes of
directions than were initially
BPR failure. Over simplification of
intended.
the needs of the organisation by top
There exists middle management
management leads to outrageous
resistance. This represents a
demands within ridiculous
significant obstacle since middle
timeframes. It was noted however
managers directly interact with
that failure of the project was
front-line employees. Resistance
attributed to the technical decision
was due to a perceived loss of
process, the technology used or the
power and/or limited input in the
reengineering team and not top
project (Prosci, 2002).
management.
Management change priorities too
soon and shift their focus, this can
The crucial mistakes described above
be attributed to loss of interest, the
are identified as the more common
reason for change has become
reasons for failure. Change
unclear, they become distracted in
management in the organisation aims
other project or the project is
to guard against repeating those
heading for failure.
mistakes.
Without a strong line of
leadership, change groups never
achieve the power that is required 4 Conclusion
despite how dedicated or capable Change is inevitable, the market
they may be (Kotter, 1995). changes, customer demands change
and the technology to support the
business change, however change is
not always within the control of the

21
 Technology and Change Management - Brenda Kearns
organisation. Research shows that it is
important to proactively manage and
control and seek out change in order to
succeed and gain a competitive edge.
An organisations ability to respond and
adapt quickly can provide increased
stability in the midst of change. Effective
change management can help towards
attaining stability; the four stage model
and PDAC cycle are suggested basic
frameworks for managing change.
Technology is central to most BPR
projects and often the success of the
project depends on the acceptance of
technology. This paper proposed that
using change management techniques on
the external factors that influence a user’s
perceived usefulness and perceived ease
of use of technology can boost their
acceptance of the system. The TAM
Traffic Light Model illustrated in this
paper is a derivation of the Technology
Acceptance Model. It illustrates that the
acceptance variables A, EOU, U and BI
are present in both systems. This paper
proposes that change management
techniques focusing on resistance to
change and common BPR failures can
help create a slightly negative BI towards
the current system while creating a more
positive BI towards the proposed system.
Research shows that the greatest obstacle
to change is resistance to change (Prosci,
1999, Bergey et. al, 1999, Fender, 2004).
The ADKAR model proposes that
employees must go through the five stages
(Awareness Desire Knowledge Ability
and Reinforcement) in order to change.
The model examines the inclination of the
employees at each step and enables
management to develop a plan to induce
willingness to accept the change.
The top ten most common reasons for
BPR failure can be used as a framework
or inputs to the change management
process. The common factor evident from
these failures was a lack of effective
communication. Management need to
communicate the need for change
and highlight the crisis situation that
may develop by avoiding the change.
Effective communication should be
used to promote or market the new
proposed changes while at the same
time, demonstrate the inadequacies of
the older system. Users resist change
because they fear the unknown but
effective communication from the
start of the change project can help
reduce this fear. It was noted that
communication efforts must be both
verbal and active (Kotter, 1995).
Management must be seen to give
active support to the change process
for it to gain the full support of the
workforce. In reality the change not
only has to be managed but also has
to be marketed. Once the change has
been implemented, the change
management process must constantly
review the change and reinforce it.
The ITIL suggest that for every
change implementation plan, there
must exist a back out strategy,
without the ability to rollback, the
repercussions can be disastrous.
References
AJZEN, I. AND FISHBEIN, M. (1975),
Belief, Attitude, Intention and
Behaviour: An Introduction to
Theory and Research, Reading,
Ma: Addison-Wesley
Publishing
ANDERSON, J., FEARS, R. and
TAYLOR, B. (1997), Managing
Technology for Competitive
Advantage, Cartermill
International and Financial
Times, 1997
AN POST (2004), An Post Demands
Changes Already Paid For,
available at
http://www.anpost.ie/corporate/
corporate_news_article.asp?ID
=354 last accessed 13/04/04
22
 Technology and Change Management - Brenda Kearns

BEDEIAN, A.G., (1983), Organisations: technology, MIS Quarterly,

Theory and Analysis, Dryden Press, Vol. 13 No.3, 319-340
Illinois, 2nd Edition1983 DAVENPORT, T.H, PRUSAK, L. AND
BERGEY, J., SMITH, D., TILLEY, S., WILSON, H.J, 2003,
WEIDERMAN, N. AND WOODS, S. Reengineering Revisited,
(1999), Why Reengineering Projects Computerworld, Vol. 37 Issue
Fail, Carnegie Mellon Software 25, pp48-50, 2003
Engineering Institute, available at FENDER, M (2004), People Not
http://www.sei.cmu.edu/pub/docume Technology: The Key to
nts/99.reports/pdf/99tr010.pdf last Successful Change
accessed 07/04/04 Management, Enterprise
BOCKLUND, L. (2002), Rising to the Systems Journal, updated
Challenge of Change, ICCM version available at
Weekly, October 10, 2002 http://www.bee.net./bluebird/ch
BOWMAN, C. (1990), “Managing g_mgmt.htm last accessed
Strategic Change”, In: The Essence 17/04/04
of Strategic Management, 1st JONES, D. (2004), The Definitive
Edition, Prentice Hall, 1990 Guide To Enterprise Network
BORN, G (1995), Business Process Re- Configuration and Change
engineering – A Short Guide, Management,
Electronic Aids for Increased Realtimepublishers.com, 2004
Profits, IEE Seminar on 29 Jun 1995 HAMMER, M (1990), Reengineering
pp.7/1-7/5 work: Don’t automate,
BS1500-2 (2003), IT service management. obliterate, Harvard Business
Code of practice for service Review, July-August, 1990
management, British Standards HEISS, M AND JANKOWSKY, M.
Publishing Limited, 2003 (2001), The Technology Tree
BUCHANAN, D.A. AND HUCZYNSKI, A. A. Concept – An evolutionary
(1985), Organisational Behaviour approach to technology
An Introductory Text, Prentice Hall management in a rapidly
International, 1985 changing market, IEMC 2001
COLLERETTE, P., SCHNEIDER R and Proceedings from Change
LEGRIS P. (2002), Managing Management and the New
Organisational Change, ISO Industrial Revolution, 2001, 7-9
Management Systems, March-April Oct. 2001 pp:37 - 43
2002 ITIL (1999), CCTA: IS Management
CSC (1999), Business reengineering Guides Managing Change,
requires IS mastery of new Format Publishing Limited,
processes, skills and tools, ISBN 1903091012
Foundation Report 1999 ITIL, (2000), CCTA: Service
DAVIS, F.D, “A Technology Acceptance Support, The Stationery Office
Model for Empirically Testing New Books, 2000
End-User Information Systems: ISOC, (2001), A Brief History of the
Theory and Results”, Doctorial Internet and Related Networks,
dissertation, Sloan School of The Internet Society, available
Management, Massachusetts at
Institute of Technology, 1986 http://www.isoc.org/internet/his
DAVIS, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, tory/cerf.shtml last accessed
perceived ease of use, and user 16/04/04
acceptance of information

23
 Technology and Change Management - Brenda Kearns

KOTTER, J.P. (1995), Leading Change: PROSCI (2002), 2002 Best Practices
Why Transformation Efforts Fail, in Business Process
Harvard Business Review, March- Reengineering Report, available
April 1995 at
KURUPPUARACHCHI, P. R. (2000), http://www.prosci.com/bprbest
Organisational Factors and IT practices.htm, last accessed
Projects: A Critical Review, ICMIT 10/04/04
2000. Proceedings of the 2000 IEEE PROSCI (2003), The five biggest
International Conference on mistakes top-management can
Management of Innovation and make during a major change,
Technology, 2000, Volume: 2, 12- Best Practices in Change
15 Nov. 2000, pp:496 – 501 Management, 2003
LEWIN K. (1946), “Action research and PROSCI (2004), “ADKAR” – a model
minority problems”, Resolving for change management,
social conflicts field theory in social Change Management Tutorial
science, Psychological Association, Series, available at
Washington DC, USA http://www.prosci.com/adkar-
LIENTZ, P. AND REA, K. (1998), overview.htm last accessed
Breakthrough Technology Project 15/04/04
Management, Academic Press, RODGERS, E., (1995), Diffusion of
Harcourt Brace & Company, 1998 Innovations, 4th Edition, New
LINDBLOM, C. E. (1994), Modes of York: The Free Press, 1995
Inquiry, Berkley Symposium on SMITH, C (2001), “Managing
Initiating Change, Journal of Public Technological Change”, In:
Administration Research and Technology Strategies 1st
Theory, Vol. 4, No. 3 July 1994 pp. Edition, Prentice Hall, 2001
327 TRADER-LEIGH, K. E (2003), Case
LYONS, G. J. (1997), Information Study: Identifying resistance in
technology: BPR tool and managing change Journal of
organisation building block, Organizational Change
Proceedings from the Americas Management; Volume 15 No.
Conference on Information Systems 2; 2002.
1997
OLSEN, T. AND BEESON, D. (2002), How Copyright © 2004
Brenda Kearns
to Practically Improve your
Requirements process using the The author assigns to Dublin Institute of
CMMI Framework, Proceedings Technology a non-exclusive licence to use
from the 2002 CMMI Technology this document for personal use and in
Conference, 2002 courses of instruction provided that the
article is used in full and this copyright
SCOTT MORTON, M (1991) The statement is reproduced. The author also
Corporation of the 1990’s: grants a non-exclusive licence to Dublin
Information Technology and institute of Technology to publish this
organisational transformation, document in full on the World Wide Web
Sloan School of Management, (prime sites and mirrors) and in printed form
within Dublin Institute of Technology
Oxford University Press, New York publications. Anyt other usage is prohibited
PAULK, M.C. (1999), Structured without the express permission of the author,
Approaches to Managing Change,
The Journal of Defense Software This paper relies on the format and style of
Engineering Vol. 12, No. 11 the Instructions to Authors of a number of
international conferences.
November 1999 pp. 4-7

24