Organisational Change - Book Summary - English literature, Summaries of English Literature

Download Organisational Change - Book Summary - English literature and more Summaries English Literature in PDF only on Docsity! Organisational Change A REVIEW FOR HEALTH CARE MANAGERS, PROFESSIONALS AND RESEARCHERS Managing Change in the NHS Valerie Iles and Kim Sutherland Managing Change in the NHS Organisational Change A REVIEW FOR HEALTH CARE MANAGERS, PROFESSIONALS AND RESEARCHERS Valerie Iles and Kim Sutherland Purpose of this review This review aims to provide a resource and reference tool to help readers find their way around the literature on change management and consider the evidence available about different approaches to change. Authors Valerie Iles, Really Learning and London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, University of London Kim Sutherland, Judge Institute of Management Studies, University of Cambridge Project sponsors Maureen Dalziel, Director NCCSDO Naomi Fulop, Deputy Director NCCSDO Professor Sir John Pattison, Director, NHS SDO R & D Programme Steering group Maureen Dalziel, NCCSDO (Chair) Sandra Dawson, Judge Institute of Management Studies, University of Cambridge Ewan Ferlie, Management School, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, University of London Naomi Fulop, NCCSDO Valerie Iles, Really Learning and London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, University of London Project management (NCCSDO) Helena Ward, Gráinne Kavanagh and Pamela Timms Project communication and editorial consultants Marsaili Cameron, Steve Cranfield (managing editor – Review), Margaret Mellor and Jud Stone. Design by Sign. Further copies Kate Thomas, Co-ordinator NCCSDO London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine 99 Gower Street London WC1E 6AZ Tel: +44 (0) 20 7612 7980 Fax: + 44 (0) 20 7612 7979 Email: [email protected] Web: www.sdo.lshtm.ac.uk Date of issue: May 2001 5 Managing Change in the NHS Acknowledgements Peer reviewers Huw Davies, Reader in Healthcare Policy and Management, Department of Management, University of St Andrews Nigel Edwards, Policy Director, The NHS Confederation Pam Garside, Management Consultant, Newhealth Laurie McMahon, Executive Director for Professional Practice, Office of Public Management Annabel Scarfe, Head of Organisation Development, NHS Executive London Region We are grateful to the large number of people who contributed to the national listening exercise conducted by the NCCSDO in autumn 1999; and also to those who attended the ‘Change Management and Quality Improvement’ workshop (4 April 2000) and the seminar ‘Managing Change in the NHS’ (12 July 2000). See Appendix 5 for lists of participants at the workshop and seminar. Permissions We are grateful to the following for their kind permission to use quoted and copyright material: Jossey-Bass Inc. (Figure 1); Perseus Books (Figure 3); Sage Publications Ltd. (Figure 5); John Wiley & Sons Ltd (Figure 6); Kate Grimes, King’s College Hospital (‘Transforming Healthcare Delivery’, ‘Improving referral processes’, and Figure 7); Addison-Wesley (Table 2); Andrew Paterson, Enfield Community Care NHS Trust (Figure 10). Every effort has been made to identify and contact copyright owners. The publishers would be pleased to hear from anyone whose rights have been unwittingly infringed. This document was commissioned and funded by the SDO R & D Programme, a national research programme managed by the National Co-ordinating Centre for NHS Service Delivery and Organisation under contract from the NHSE R & D Directorate. 6 The need for change in the health service is now widely recognised – by public, by professions and by government. The NHS Plan, issued last year, requires a fundamental change in thinking, practice and delivery of health care over the next decade. The challenges for those working towards meeting the Plan’s ambitious change agenda are clear. We know that practising managers and professionals are keen to meet these challenges, to improve services by learning from the research literature and to base their decisions in evidence where possible. Many people in the NHS, however, are not familiar with the thinking about management of change which has come out of schools of management, psychology, sociology, and economics, over the last fifty years. Many who are aware of some of the concepts do not appreciate the contexts in which they were developed, nor the purposes to which they may be put in the process of managing change. Important insights and guidance which the literature offers are thus not being used to maximum effect. This document is one of two SDO publications on change management – the second is a booklet summarising key lessons – designed with the needs of different audiences in mind but with the single aim of helping people to bridge this gap between the commitment to change and action. Drawing upon expertise from the Judge Institute of Management Studies, University of Cambridge, and benefiting from the advice of other academic colleagues, and colleagues in the NHS and other sectors, we have produced in this publication what we hope is a succinct and user-friendly review of the literature and evidence on change that the whole NHS can draw on. We trust that significant lessons for change will be drawn from this review and its sister publication and that they will stimulate further debate and inquiry in this important area. Professor Sir John Pattison Director NHS SDO R & D Programme Foreword 7 Managing Change in the NHS Approach and method In order to explore this large and complex field a multi-method approach was used. First, a list of key theories and concepts was defined after reference to general management texts and review articles addressing change management, as well as through consultation and discussion with academics, management consultants and NHS managers. Desk research was accompanied by further discussions with fellow academics and practitioners over which tools, models and approaches they deemed most and least important, and which concepts were most commonly discussed by practitioners. These tools, models and approaches were then subjected to a systematic literature review, carried out by: • searching the major computerised databases – Proquest/ABI Inform, Social Science Citation Index (BIDS), and Medline • identifying key books and reports by seeking advice from academics and practitioners, and by reviewing published articles looking for influences and references • conducting more specific searches as described in Appendix 1. Analysis and discussion of findings were subject to peer review and supplementary literature searches on two further tools and models were carried out. A number of other tools did not warrant a comprehensive literature search but were included because they were found to be useful in practice. Both the searched and the non- searched models and tools are clearly distinguished as such in the publication. Criteria used for assessing the rigour of empirical studies were: clarity of methodology, peer review, use of multiple case studies, and external evaluation. 10 The literature on change management 1ManagingChangein the NHS Managing Change in the NHS 1.1 Where does the literature come from? Practitioners and academics have considered the management of change in organisations ever since management emerged as a discipline, at the beginning of the twentieth century. The arrival of large, complex organisations after the Second World War heightened interest in this subject and thus there is a large body of thinking about change that has been developed over the last fifty years. While some of the challenges facing the NHS are novel, many of them may benefit from the application of concepts that were developed several decades ago. The literature about change management is large and not easy to access for six main reasons. 1. It contains contributions from several different academic disciplines including psychology, sociology, business policy, social policy and others. 2. Its boundaries can be set differently, according to the definition of change management employed. 3. Valuable contributions to the literature have been made in all of the last five decades, with the later not necessarily superseding the earlier. 4. It contains evidence, examples and illustrations generated in a wide variety of organisations and from a diverse range of methodologies with varying degrees of rigour. 5. Some material is not readily accessible to non-specialists and does not readily lend itself to cumulative review. 6. The concepts included within it range in scale from whole academic schools, through methodologies to single tools. Furthermore, the literature differs in format and tone, encompassing descriptive accounts of change, theoretical models for analysing change, prescriptive models that aim to guide the change process, typologies of different approaches to organisational change, and empirical studies of the success and failure of various initiatives, programmes and tools. In this review the presentation of the literature is structured so that managers and practitioners in particular may be better able to: • find their way around the literature • easily remember key lessons • ‘place’ a model or idea when they come across it • test out a new idea against others of its kind • assess the benefits of new ideas and programmes put forward by consultants. 12 P A R T 1 : T H E L I T E R A T U R E O N C H A N G E M A N A G E M E N T continuous change is characterised by people constantly adapting and editing ideas they acquire from different sources. At a collective level these continuous adjustments made simultaneously across units can create substantial change. The distinction between episodic and continuous change helps clarify thinking about an organisation’s future development and evolution in relation to its long- term goals. Few organisations are in a position to decide unilaterally that they will adopt an exclusively continuous change approach. They can, however, capitalise upon many of the principles of continuous change by engendering the flexibility to accommodate and experiment with everyday contingencies, breakdowns, exceptions, opportunities and unintended consequences that punctuate organisational life (Orlikowski, 1996). Developmental, transitional and transformational change Change can also be understood in relation to its extent and scope. Ackerman (1997) has distinguished between three types of change: developmental, transitional and transformational. (See Figure 1.) 1. Developmental change may be either planned or emergent; it is first order, or incremental. It is change that enhances or corrects existing aspects of an organisation, often focusing on the improvement of a skill or process. 2. Transitional change seeks to achieve a known desired state that is different from the existing one. It is episodic, planned and second order, or radical. The model of transitional change is the basis of much of the organisational change literature (see for example Kanter, 1983; Beckhard and Harris, 1987; Nadler and Tushman, 1989). It has its foundations in the work of Lewin (1951) who conceptualised change as a three-stage process involving: • unfreezing the existing organisational equilibrium • moving to a new position • refreezing in a new equilibrium position. Schein in 1987 further explored these three stages. He suggested that unfreezing involves: • disconfirmation of expectations • creation of guilt or anxiety • provision of psychological safety that converts anxiety into motivation to change. Moving to a new position is achieved through cognitive restructuring, often through: • identifying with a new role model or mentor • scanning the environment for new relevant information. Refreezing occurs when the new point of view is integrated into: • the total personality and concept of self • significant relationships. 15 16 3. Transformational change is radical or second order in nature. It requires a shift in assumptions made by the organisation and its members. Transformation can result in an organisation that differs significantly in terms of structure, processes, culture and strategy. It may, therefore, result in the creation of an organisation that operates in developmental mode – one that continuously learns, adapts and improves. Systems thinking and change Many of the approaches to organisational change found in the literature give the impression that change is (or can be) a rational, controlled, and orderly process. In practice, however, organisational change is chaotic, often involving shifting goals, discontinuous activities, surprising events, and unexpected combinations of changes and outcomes (Cummings et al., 1985; Dawson, 1996). Accordingly, change can be understood in relation to the complex dynamic systems within which change takes place. Systems thinking originated in the 1920s within several disciplines, notably biology and engineering, and grew out of the observation that there were many aspects which scientific analysis could not explore. Whereas scientific method – summarised by Popper (1972) as the three Rs: reduction, repeatability and refutation – increases our knowledge and understanding by breaking things Managing Change in the NHS Figure 1: Perspectives on change Adapted from Ackerman (1997) TRANSITION OLD STATE p er fo rm an ce time birth growth plateau chaos death re-emergence NEW STATE ➤ Developmental change Improvement of existing situation Transitional change Implementation of a known new state; management of the interim transition state over a controlled period of time Transformational change Emergence of a new state, unknown until it takes shape, out of the remains of the chaotic death of the old state; time period not easily controlled P A R T 1 : T H E L I T E R A T U R E O N C H A N G E M A N A G E M E N T down into their constituent parts and exploring the properties of these parts, systems thinking explores the properties which exist once the parts have been combined into a whole. (For further background on systems thinking, see Appendix 3.) A system is a set of elements connected together which form a whole, thereby possessing properties of the whole rather than of its component parts (Checkland, 1981). Activity within a system is the result of the influence of one element on another. This influence is called feedback and can be positive (amplifying) or negative (balancing) in nature. Systems are not chains of linear cause-and-effect relationships but complex networks of interrelationships (Senge, 1990). Systems are described as closed or open. Closed systems are completely autonomous and independent of what is going on around them. Open systems exchange materials, energy and information with their environment. The systems of interest in managing change can all be characterised as open systems. In terms of understanding organisations, systems thinking suggests that issues, events, forces and incidents should not be viewed as isolated phenomena but seen as interconnected, interdependent components of a complex entity. Applied to change management, systems theory highlights the following points. • A system is made up of related and interdependent parts, so that any system must be viewed as a whole. • A system cannot be considered in isolation from its environment. • A system which is in equilibrium will change only if some type of energy is applied. • Players within a system have a view of that system’s function and purpose and players’ views may be very different from each other. Within the NHS the term whole systems thinking is now routinely used by managers and clinicians. This widespread usage reflects an increase in: • awareness of the multifactorial issues involved in health care, which mean that complex health and social problems lie beyond the ability of any one practitioner, team or agency to ‘fix’ • interest in designing, planning and managing organisations as living, interdependent systems committed to providing ‘seamless care’ for patients • recognition of the need to develop shared values, purposes and practices within the organisation and between organisations • use of large group interventions to bring together the perspectives of a wide range of stakeholders across a wider system. Largely for these reasons we have drawn on insights from systems thinking – as well as on other concepts discussed in this section – to help organise the groupings of change management models in Part 2 and to highlight the inter- relationships between these. 17 Managing Change in the NHS 20 Tools, models and approaches: a selective review 2ManagingChangein the NHS Managing Change in the NHS 2.1 How to access the models Part 2 of this review presents some of the main tools, models and approaches described in the change management literature. It discusses how these models may be used to help achieve change and it explores some of the evidence available about their use. The sheer size and scope of the literature on change management can make it hard for managers and practitioners to access the literature and find their way around it. What is needed are obvious points of entry and clear signposts through the forest. We have already discussed how the literature is drawn from many disciplines of thought and that bringing these together into a unifying framework is not easy. Listing models by chronology or school of origin does little to provide a coherent pathway; alternatively, trying to link concepts to stages in a change process may prove misleading or repetitive, since the majority of models can be used for several different purposes. How then might readers find their way into and around the literature? Finding a way in We have chosen to use an organising method which clusters models around a small number of key questions. This is because these questions – and the accompanying scenarios – are likely be at the forefront of many readers’ minds whenever they attempt to make links between the immediate pressures of organisational life and the insights offered by the literature. 1. How can we understand complexity, interdependence and fragmentation? In the situation where I'm trying to achieve change, there are no cut-and-dried solutions. The situation is complex and dynamic. This means that I can't plan for everything that will happen. And I need to take into account the fact that any intervention I make may spark off unplanned consequences. What frameworks can help me to think constructively about living with this kind of complexity? 2. Why do we need to change? I can't make the effort that's needed to bring about effective change if I'm not truly convinced it is necessary. The same is true of all the staff in the organisation. What frameworks can help me to share an understanding of why change is needed? 3. Who and what can change? Many different people and processes have to be involved if change is to be effective. What frameworks can help me to identify the key areas for my attention? 4. How can we make change happen? I understand the situation. I know why we need to change. I see who and what needs to change. But how can all this insight be used to create a change initiative that will really deliver the results that are needed? What frameworks can help me? Clusters of models are set out in Figure 2. 22 P A R T 2 : T O O L S , M O D E L S A N D A P P R O A C H E S : A S E L E C T I V E R E V I E W Getting to grips with the question The complexity and size of the NHS mean that managers and professionals are always working on several levels at once. They are dealing with a range of pressures from the centre, for example, and also with immediate local demands. In other words, they are working with multiple priorities competing for time. Many feel a need to bring together disconnected external initiatives and internal requirements into one coherent, manageable approach. The concepts discussed here range in scope from comprehensive methodologies to single tools. All, however, provide insight into potential ways of understanding and dealing with these multiple priorities and pressures. Approaches discussed in Section 2.2 ■ Weisbord’s Six-Box Organisational Model ■ 7S Model ● PESTELI ● Five Whys ■ Content, Context and Process Model ■ Soft Systems Methodology ■ Process modelling ● Process flow ● Influence diagram ■ Theory of Constraints (TOC) The first two tools introduced in this section are checklists of aspects of an organisation that should be considered simultaneously in recognition of their interdependence. Description and use Weisbord suggested, in 1976, that there were six key areas in which ‘things must go right’ if an organisation was to be successful. These are depicted in Figure 3. The model provides a diagnostic tool for identifying the key areas. 2.2 How can we understand complexity, interdependence and fragmentation? 25 ■ Weisbord’s Six-Box Organisational Model ■ Weisbord’s Six-Box Organisational Model Managing Change in the NHS Weisbord, a change management consultant, has subsequently been associated with the development of techniques such as ‘Future Search’ which have been applied to recent change management research and development initiatives in the UK, for example, the King’s Fund’s Urban Health Partnership project (Plamping, Gordon and Pratt, 1998). Evidence The literature search found little evidence of note relating to this model. Commentary See ‘Commentary’ page 29. 26 Purposes What business are we in? Helpful mechanisms Have we adequate co-ordinating technologies? Relationships How do we manage conflict among people? With technologies? Structure How do we divide up the work? Rewards Do all needed tasks have incentives? Leadership Does someone keep the boxes in balance? Environment Figure 3: Six-Box Organisational Model Weisbord (1976) ■ Weisbord’s Six-Box Organisational Model Some years later Waterman, Peters and Phillips (1980), working for the US management consultancy McKinsey, developed a rather similar approach. They suggested that there were seven aspects of an organisation that needed to harmonise with each other, to point in the same direction like the needles of seven compasses. If each aspect supports the others then the organisation can be said to be ‘organised’. As each of these aspects can be titled with a word beginning with S this list or web has become known as the 7S Model (see Figure 4). Description The constituent parts of the 7S Model are: • Strategy: plan or course of action leading to the allocation of an organisation’s finite resources to reach identified goals • Structure: salient features of the organisational chart (e.g. degree of hierarchy, presence of internal market, extent of centralisation/decentralisation) and interconnections within the organisation • Systems: procedures and routine processes, including how information moves around the organisation • Staff: personnel categories within the organisation, e.g. nurses, doctors, technicians • Style: characterisation of how key managers behave in order to achieve the organisation’s goals P A R T 2 : T O O L S , M O D E L S A N D A P P R O A C H E S : A S E L E C T I V E R E V I E W 27 Figure 4: 7S Model Based on Peters and Waterman (1982) ■ 7S Model STRUCTURE STRATEGY SKILLS SYSTEMS STYLE SHARED VALUES STAFF ■ 7S Model Managing Change in the NHS Use Like the 7S Model, this checklist can be used to analyse which factors in the environment are helpful to the organisation, and which may impede progress to the organisation’s aims. From here, work can commence on how the organisation could respond to these forces. It is only if this second stage is undertaken that PEST or PESTELI becomes useful rather than merely interesting. Evidence Not subjected to a literature search. Commentary Too often included as a stand-alone section in reports, and not linked to any implications for organisational action, nor to the internal analysis (7S or equivalent), this tool for the analysis of the external environment frequently may not yield a return for the investment of time made to undertake it. This is not an indictment of the tool, however. There is a danger, common to all checklists, such as the ones discussed here, that once an entry has been made under each of the headings it is deemed complete, regardless of whether or not this list reflects the complexity of the reality. Another common error in implementation is that the ‘boxes’ are completed without reference to the aims of the organisation or to the change programme; this can lead to considerable expenditure of time and energy for little benefit. Description The checklists described above encourage a holistic approach to an organisation, enabling the complexity of a situation to be recognised and to contribute to resolving any dilemmas. However, if the focus is a single problem event then such a wide-ranging analysis may not be necessary. The interrelationships which led to the event do still need to be considered, and one means of doing so is to ask series of ‘Why (did this happen)?’ questions. Use Five Whys is a simple tool which addresses single-problem events rather than generic organisational issues. Included in Senge et al. (1994), Five Whys explores the interrelationships which underlie an aberrant or unfavourable event. If a problem occurs, the first ‘Why?’ question is asked: ‘Why did this happen?’ A number of answers may be found and for each of these the next ‘Why?’ is asked: ‘Why is that?’ The whole process is repeated until five consecutive ‘Why?’s have been asked and answered. 30 ● Five Whys ● PESTELI ● Five Whys An illustrative example (Table 1) follows. Evidence Not subjected to a literature search. Commentary This is a simple tool which can help managers resist the temptation to deal with symptoms rather than causes. P A R T 2 : T O O L S , M O D E L S A N D A P P R O A C H E S : A S E L E C T I V E R E V I E W 31 ● Five Whys She was sent by staff nurse B to assist other staff in dealing with another patient whose needs were more serious The team was about to hand over to the next shift and while preparing for the handover there were fewer staff available on the ward The handover system needs attention It is a while since the handover system was discussed on the ward and some aspects are not being observed A failed to mention to B that she had been asked to bring a bedpan B had not invited A to hand back any outstanding tasks Staff nurse B would benefit from some training in communication skills Appraisal has been allowed to slip during recent shortages of staff Table 1: Five Whys 1 Why? 2 Why? 3 Why? 4 Why? 5 Why? Nursing assistant A failed to bring it Problem situation: an inpatient complains that her request for a bed pan has been ignored. Managing Change in the NHS Description This model of strategic change was originally developed by Pettigrew and Whipp (1991) as a means of generating insight into why some private sector organisations were better able than others to manage strategic change and improve their competitive performance. The model was based on empirical case studies. It was subsequently developed and extended in the context of health care by Pettigrew, Ferlie and McKee in their study Shaping Strategic Change (1992). It is a reminder that change takes place in a historical, cultural, economic and political context. The original model suggests there are five interrelated factors that are important in shaping a firm’s performance. 1. Environmental assessment. 2. Human resources as assets and liabilities. 3. Linking strategic and operational change. 4. Leading change. 5. Overall coherence. Like the other models in this group, this stresses the importance of interacting components. It suggests that successful change is a result of the interaction between the content or what of change (objectives, purpose and goals); the process or how of change (implementation); and the organisational context of change (the internal and external environment). Use Pettigrew et al.’s 1992 study elucidated factors associated with the achievement of a higher rate of strategic service change by health care organisations (Figure 5). There were eight health care organisations studied, consisting of four matched pairs (organisations which faced a similar agenda but which exhibited different outcomes). Health care organisations were found to be more or less able to manage strategic change depending on the context in which they were operating. Eight interlinked factors served to differentiate the higher from the lower performers. 1. Quality and coherence of local policy (analytic and process components). 2. Key people leading change (especially a multidisciplinary team). 3. Co-operative interorganisational networks. 4. Supportive organisational culture, including the managerial subculture. 5. Environmental pressure, moderate, predictable and long-term. 6. Simplicity and clarity of goals and priorities. 7. Positive pattern of managerial and clinical relations. 8. Fit between the change agenda and the locale (some locales were much more complex than others, for example Inner London). There was a pattern of association between the eight factors but there were no simple cause-and-effect relationships. 32 ■ Content, Context and Process Model ■ Content, Context and Process Model P A R T 2 : T O O L S , M O D E L S A N D A P P R O A C H E S : A S E L E C T I V E R E V I E W Proponents of SSM argue that the initial situation will be changed by the very use of this methodology. It differs from a hard systems approach (see page 89) in not having an external change agent whose role is to effect change. In SSM the role of any external agent is to facilitate the understanding of those players within the system so that they design and implement changes themselves. Use There follows an illustrative example of SSM in change management in health care delivery. ‘Transforming Healthcare Delivery’ King’s College Hospital in London uses an SSM approach for its change programme – ‘Transforming Healthcare Delivery’ – which was established in 1994. A small team of staff facilitate a range of projects around the organisation. All projects use a team of staff from the area within which the project is taking place, with the Transformation team providing facilitation. Facilitation is defined as ‘managing the project and team meetings process so that the participants can focus together on achieving the project/meetings objectives’. The initial stage of each project is to develop a common picture and understanding of the current situation. Often this will begin with developing a process map – of a system or the patient’s journey through the system. This is always done as a team and reflects current reality: not what should happen but what actually does happen. Very often this will alter people’s perceptions as, for example, doctors suddenly realise that nurses do a range of tasks they never knew about and vice versa. Staff who have worked on project teams will often express how much they have valued gaining an understanding of the patient’s whole journey, and seeing their place within that. Teams also need to gain a common understanding of the problems and difficulties within that system. A broad range of techniques are employed to achieve this. One of the most powerful is using patients’ views. Unstructured interviews with patients can give a large number of direct quotes (30 interviews have given over 400 quotes). These quotes can be mapped onto a process flow of the patient’s journey at the appropriate point to demonstrate where the problem areas are. Additionally, they can be given to the project team, who can use clustering techniques to develop their own problem statements which they then try to solve. Other techniques for gaining a common picture of the current situation include observation, more detailed questionnaires, and audit and analysis of routine data. It is important that the team design and administer the audit themselves if a common owned picture is to emerge. Root cause analysis is another useful tool to help a team deepen their understanding of a problem. Skilfully facilitated, this allows all members of the team to voice their understanding of why a problem occurs. Supplied by Kate Grimes, Programme Leader, Transforming Healthcare Delivery, King’s College Hospital 35 ■ Soft Systems Methodology Managing Change in the NHS Evidence SSM has been widely used across sectors, although in a 30-year retrospective of the methodology, Checkland and Scholes (1999) note that its use has sometimes been selective, that is, some of its ideas are adopted while others are not. Published evidence is limited to case study reports detailing how SSM has been used. In health, SSM-based case studies have focused on a wide range of issues including: simulations for resource allocation and planning (Lehaney and Hlupic, 1995); contract management (Hindle et al., 1995); analysis of nurse management and activity in a psychiatric inpatient facility (Wells, 1995); relocation of specialty services (Hindle, Roberts and Worthington, 1998); simulations of outpatients departments in order to address non-attendance rates (Lehaney et al., 1999); implementation of resource management initiative (Rose and Haynes, 1999). Most focus on providing descriptions of analyses and modelling processes and the learning experiences gained from adopting an SSM approach. Some of the case studies raise concerns about the time and cost implications of using SSM (Lehaney et al., 1999) and question whether organisational members can be energised and motivated sufficiently to carry the process through to its conclusion (Rose and Haynes, 1999). Commentary SSM was originally developed to allow the use of a systems approach to explore social reality, rather than as a means of effecting change, so according to its own aims it has been successful. Variations on this approach have been used to effect change in a number of settings, including health care. It is used as part of other approaches, for example TQM and BPR (see pages 48 and 50). The transformation programme at King’s College Hospital, for example, originally began as one of two sites in the NHS piloting BPR. One way of gaining clarification of different views and expectations of a process is to use process modelling. This is a way of increasing understanding of how the current situation works and provides a clear articulation of how the new one is to be different. It does this by capturing visually the dynamics of a situation so that they can be discussed with all those involved. It can be used, for example, in SSM, Organisational Development (OD), project management, or as a stand- alone diagnostic process. Below we illustrate and discuss three examples of process modelling approaches. • Process flow which represents diagrammatically all the stages involved in the completion of a particular process. • Influence diagram which depicts the ways in which the main components of a system influence each other. These can both be used as part of SSM process. • Theory of Constraints which applies process modelling techniques to identify bottlenecks. 36 ■ Process modelling ■ Process modelling ■ Soft Systems Methodology P A R T 2 : T O O L S , M O D E L S A N D A P P R O A C H E S : A S E L E C T I V E R E V I E W Description A process flow diagram captures all the stages in a process using a particular notation (see Figure 7). Supplied by Kate Grimes, Programme Leader, Transforming Healthcare Delivery, King’s College Hospital 37 ● Process flow ■ Process modelling ● Process flow Figure 7: An actual process map Consultant decides which patient to move Admissions manager rings the patient within 24 hours Patient is seen in clinic for booking Patient agrees date and also date for pre-assessment Patient is booked as a booked admission Patient is prioritised for admission Patient is admitted What happens? BOOKING URGENT CANCER PATIENTS AS BOOKED ADMISSIONS Doctor decides patient needs to be admitted Is the patient in clinic? N Y Patient referred to Nurse Specialist for information and counselling Admissions manager is contacted by doctor for date Can admissions manager go down to the clinic to see the patient? N Y Is the list fully booked? Y N Getting to grips with the question Many models can help people to explore either directly or indirectly the rationale for change. We look at only one such model here – SWOT analysis. SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) focuses attention on the match – or lack of match – between what the organisation is geared up to offer and what the world outside needs and wants. In doing so, it encourages people to see their own organisation, group or team from a range of different perspectives. Some of these perspectives are likely to be unfamiliar. In the NHS, as in other complex systems, it is only too easy to look inwards much more frequently than outwards – or for attention to be focused on certain types of drivers, such as policy directives or performance indicators. But the real answers to the question, ‘Why do we need to change?’, lie in identifying and reflecting on the gaps between what is currently being offered and what is likely to be needed in the next few years. Description SWOT is an acronym for examining an organisation’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats, and using the result to identify priorities for action (Ansoff, 1965). The main principle underlying SWOT is that internal and external factors must be considered simultaneously, when identifying aspects of an organisation that need to be changed. Strengths and weaknesses are internal to the organisation; opportunities and threats are external. Use Many managers and health professionals will have experience of working with this framework. A team or other subunit of an organisation writes down its mission or purpose. Keeping this mission in mind, they then identify all their strengths and weaknesses, preferably using a checklist such as the 7S Model (see page 27). They do the same for opportunities and threats, using a checklist for the external environment such as PESTELI (see page 29). On its own this information is rarely helpful or usable and must be considered further. This requires the asking of further questions about each of the factors listed under the four headings. For strengths and weaknesses the questions asked are: 1. What are the consequences of this? Do they help or hinder us in achieving our mission? If the factor does genuinely help the achievement of the mission (and only if the positive impact on the mission is convincing) then indeed it is a strength. Similarly if, but only if, it hinders achievement of the mission is it a weakness. 2. What are the causes of this strength (or weakness)? 2.3 Why do we need to change? Managing Change in the NHS 40 ■ SWOT analysis ■ SWOT analysis P A R T 2 : T O O L S , M O D E L S A N D A P P R O A C H E S : A S E L E C T I V E R E V I E W 41 For opportunities and threats the questions are slightly different. 1. What impact is this likely to have on us? Will it help or hinder us in achieving our mission? Again, only if the opportunity helps the team achieve the mission can it be considered such; even if it causes the world to be a nicer place, but fails to impact on the team’s ability to achieve its mission, it will not be an opportunity for these purposes. 2. What must we do to respond to this opportunity or threat? The analyst now reflects on the mission and all four components, paying particular attention to the causes of the strengths and weaknesses, and to the responses required to the opportunities and threats, and links together common threads into a set of priorities for the team to address. Evidence SWOT analysis is a ubiquitous feature of business strategy texts and courses. In a survey of 113 UK companies, Glaister and Falshaw (1999) found that SWOT was one of the most widely used strategic planning tools in current use across a range of sectors. In health, SWOT has been used in a variety of settings, including: the voluntary community health movement in India (Sharma and Bhatia, 1996); subacute care services in the USA (Stahl, 1994); public oral health services in Finland (Toivanen et al., 1999); the provision of medical education in Australia (Gordon et al., 2000); and activity aimed at control of tobacco use in the UK (Edwards et al., 1999). These publications provide descriptions of how SWOT was used in a particular setting and do not attempt to evaluate the relative value of the technique. In a review of its use in 50 UK companies, Hill and Westbrook (1997) found that SWOT often resulted in over-long lists of factors, general and often meaningless descriptions, a failure to prioritise issues and no attempt to verify any conclusions. Further, they found that the outputs, once generated, were rarely used. Commentary The above findings do not invalidate the use of SWOT. They do, however, reinforce the point that SWOT needs to be used carefully and with the end in mind rather than as a process in its own right. ■ SWOT analysis Getting to grips with the question Since its earliest days, the NHS has been characterised by almost constant structural change. Change of this kind has resolved some problems, at some times, but has left many other deep-seated problems untouched. There is increasing recognition that people – individuals, teams and workforces – offer the key to lasting change in the health service. People deliver health services to people. They do this within a system which either helps or hinders them. Managers and other leaders are looking for ways in which they can manage resources and integrate a range of processes, plans and initiatives while acting on the principle that ‘people should be seen as a way of solving problems ... rather than as part of the problem and either taken for granted or more rigidly controlled’ (NHS Executive London, 2000: 4). Many will be concerned, therefore, to know more about working with others to create an adaptable workforce of the kind described in the NHS Plan (DOH, 2000) – well led and fit for practice and purpose. There is likely to be particular interest in the following issues: • what helps or hinders people working together to achieve change • how lessons from the change effort can be shared as constructively and widely as possible • what kinds of change intervention are particularly ‘people-friendly’. Approaches discussed in Section 2.4 ■ Force field analysis ● ‘Sources and potency of forces’ ● ‘Readiness and capability’ ● Commitment, enrolment and compliance ■ Organisation-level change interventions ■ Total Quality Management (TQM) ■ Business Process Reengineering (BPR) ■ Group-level change interventions ■ Parallel learning structures ■ Self-managed teams ■ Individual-level change interventions ■ Innovation research ■ Securing individual behaviour change In the first part of the section we begin by considering one of the early researchers in this field, Lewin, and his force field model for analysing who and what increase the likelihood of change, and who and what resist it. We then go on to look at three simple tools – ‘sources and potency of change’, ‘readiness and capability’ and commitment, enrolment and compliance – that help put into practice insights from this kind of research. The second part of this section looks at a range of approaches with a particular focus on the design and planning of interventions at different levels. Another reason for grouping together the particular approaches covered here is that 2.4 Who and what can change? Managing Change in the NHS 42 P A R T 2 : T O O L S , M O D E L S A N D A P P R O A C H E S : A S E L E C T I V E R E V I E W 45 In their book Organisational Transitions: Managing Complex Change (1987) Beckhard and Harris describe and illustrate two techniques for analysing relevant sources of energy. They analyse respectively the ‘sources and potency of forces for change’, and the ‘readiness and capability’ of individuals and groups to enact change. Description First, the nature of the change demanded must be specified, using tools of the sort described in previous sections. Then all the forces for change, both inside the organisation and external to it, are listed along one axis of a grid. On the other axis the potency of the forces is indicated, as high, medium or low. (See Table 2.) Use The grid is useful for clarifying the underlying forces for change. On occasion, as Beckhard and Harris point out, the energy for change emanates from one particular senior manager, rather than from a variety of environmental sources such as demographic change and new technologies. They observe that this does not invalidate the change objectives but clarifies where the energy will have to come from in the ensuing change programme. Evidence Not subjected to a literature search. Table 2: Sample grid for analysing the sources and potency of forces for change Beckhard and Harris (1987) ● ‘Sources and potency of forces’ Owners Legislature Employees Trade unions Social values High Medium Low ● ‘Sources and potency of forces’ Nature of change demanded: ___________________________________________________________________________________ P o te nc y o f fo rc es Commentary Whereas Lewin’s analysis is used to diagnose and plan interventions, this is more useful as a vehicle for discussion among key opinion-formers at an early point in the change process, to ensure that everybody is aware of the need for change. See also ‘General commentary’, page 59. Description Early on in the change process, managers need to identify which specific groups and individuals will be required to support the change if the change is to be successful. When they have done so they can determine the readiness and capability of these individuals and groups to enact the roles required of them in the change process. Understanding the readiness involves analysing attitudes: willingness, motives and aims. Capability is determined by whether they have the power, the influence and the authority to allocate resources, and the appropriate information and skills. Beckhard and Harris (1987: 63) have developed a Readiness–Capability Assessment Chart which enables the user to list individuals or groups who are critical to the change effort, and to rank them (high, medium, or low) each according to their readiness and capability with respect to change. Use In health care organisations power is derived from a number of different sources and is not as easy to identify as in other industries. In any change management process the location of power and the use to which it will be put need to be known by those attempting to lead the process and this tool is, among other things, a means of finding out its location. Evidence Not subjected to a literature search. Commentary Any change agent or senior manager in a health care setting will intuitively undertake an analysis of this sort. This chart helps bring it into the open, permits assumptions to be tested and information shared, and thus increases the validity of the information available to the change agent. See also ‘General commentary’, page 59. Managing Change in the NHS 46 ● ‘Readiness and capability’ ● ‘Sources and potency of forces’ ● ‘Readiness and capability’ P A R T 2 : T O O L S , M O D E L S A N D A P P R O A C H E S : A S E L E C T I V E R E V I E W 47 Where a change must be implemented from the outside, so to speak, that is, when it has not been defined as necessary by the people involved, then it is unlikely to succeed (yield the full results of which people have ambitions) unless some of those involved are in favour of it. Several observers have suggested however that not everyone needs to support a change, and that not everybody needs to support it to the same extent. Description and use Senge in The Fifth Discipline (1990) talks of the difference between commitment, enrolment and compliance, suggesting that while it is more pleasant (and reassuring) to have considerable commitment, it is not necessary for everyone to be as fully signed-up as this. There exist a number of positions along a continuum, along which players may position themselves in response to proposed action and change, as illustrated in Table 3. Senge suggests analysing what level of support is required from each of the players and directing energy to achieve that, rather than at trying to persuade everybody to ‘commit’. Evidence Not subjected to a literature search. ● Commitment, enrolment and compliance ● Commitment, enrolment and compliance Table 3: Commitment, enrolment and compliance PLAYERS’ RESPONSE TO THE CHANGE Want change to happen and will work to make it happen. Willing to create whatever structures, systems and frameworks are necessary for it to work. Want change to happen and will devote time and energy to making it happen within given frameworks. Act within the spirit of the frameworks. See the virtue in what is proposed, do what is asked of them and think proactively about what is needed. Act within the letter of the frameworks. Can describe the benefits of what is proposed and are not hostile to them. They do what they are asked but no more. Stick to the letter of the framework. Do not accept that there are benefits to what is proposed and do not go along with it. They do enough of what is asked of them not to jeopardise position. They voice opposition and hopes for failure. Interpret the letter of the framework. Do not accept that there are benefits and have nothing to lose by opposing the proposition. Will not do what is asked of them. Work outside framework. Neither in support of nor in opposition to the proposal, just serving time. Don’t care about framework. DISPOSITION Commitment Enrolment Genuine compliance Formal compliance Grudging compliance Non-compliance Apathy implementation was piecemeal, and rarely focused on core organisational processes of the NHS – that is, clinical practice – concentrating instead on peripheral and administrative activities. These findings may reflect the reluctance of medical staff to engage in TQM efforts: ... where TQM has been tried in hospitals so far doctors are often not effective on quality improvement teams. They arrive late or not at all to the meetings, they dominate when they are present; and they sometimes leap to solutions before the team has done its proper diagnostic work on the process. (Berwick et al., 1992: 305) Commentary See ‘Commentary’, page 55 and ‘General commentary’, page 59. Description Business Process Reengineering (BPR) is a technique for corporate transformation that came to prominence in the early 1990s. BPR, a term coined by Hammer and Champy (1993: 32), is defined as: ... the fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of business processes to achieve dramatic improvements in critical, contemporary measures of performance such as cost, quality, service and speed. The main concepts that underpin the BPR approach include the following. • Organisations should be organised around key processes rather than specialist functions. • Narrow specialists should be replaced by multi-skilled workers, often working in self-managed teams. • In contrast with incremental techniques such as TQM, BPR involves total disassociation from current practices and radical rethinking. • The direction for the requisite radical rethinking comes unequivocally from top management. Use The steps involved in implementing BPR are as follows. 1. Prepare the organisation: clarification and assessment of the organisation’s strategic context; specification of the organisation’s strategy and objectives; communication throughout the organisation of reasons for and purpose of reengineering. 2. Fundamentally rethink the way that work gets done: identify and analyse core business processes; define key performance objectives; design new processes. These tasks are the essence of reengineering and are typically Managing Change in the NHS 50 ■ Business Process Reengineering (BPR) ■ Organisation-level change interventions ■ Total Quality Management (TQM) ■ Organisation-level change interventions ■ Business Process Reengineering (BPR) P A R T 2 : T O O L S , M O D E L S A N D A P P R O A C H E S : A S E L E C T I V E R E V I E W 51 performed by a cross-functional team that is given considerable time and resources to accomplish them. New processes are designed according to the following guidelines (Hammer and Champy, 1993): • begin and end the process with the needs and wants of the customer • simplify the current process by combining or eliminating steps • attend to both technical and social aspects of the process • do not be constrained by past practice • identify the critical information required at each step • perform activities in their most natural order • assume the work gets done right the first time • listen to the people who do the work. An important activity in successful reengineering efforts involves early wins to generate and sustain momentum. 3. Restructure the organisation around the new business process. 4. Implement new information and measurement systems to reinforce change. Hammer (1990) asserts that the essence of reengineering is discontinuous thinking, encompassing a move away from linear, sequential thinking to a holistic, all-or-nothing, perspective on change in organisations. It involves a move away from deductive thinking, that is, defining a problem and then seeking its resolution by evaluating a number of possible remedies. Hammer and Champy (1993: 85) make a case for inductive thinking ‘to recognise a powerful solution and then seek the problems it might solve, problems the company probably doesn’t even know it has’. According to them, reengineered organisations have a number of other fundamental differences from ‘traditional’ organisations, as summarised in Table 4. ■ Organisation-level change interventions ■ Business Process Reengineering (BPR) Table 4: Characteristics of a reengineered organisation Adapted from Hammer and Champy (1993) and Currie (1999) Organisational structure Work units Nature of work Employee involvement Managerial roles Executive roles Value system Focus of performance measurement Promotion criteria TRADITIONAL ORGANISATION Hierarchical Functional departments Simple tasks Controlled Supervisors Scorekeepers Protective Activities Performance REENGINEERED ORGANISATION Flat Process teams Multidimensional work Empowered Coaches Leaders Productive Outcomes Ability Evidence There is wide variation in the reported success of BPR initiatives. Success rates range from 69% (Jarrar and Aspinwall, 1999) to 30% (Hall, Rosenthal and Wade, 1993). Hammer and Champy themselves estimate that 50–70% of efforts fail to meet their cost, cycle time or productivity objectives (Hammer and Champy, 1993: 200). This is attributed to poor implementation of BPR rather than a problem with the concept itself: ... as has already happened with TQM, we are now seeing many organisations pick up half an understanding of reengineering and then install half of that. (Hammer and Stanton, 1995) While the literature contains many articles that claim to focus on BPR, on closer examination many interventions are piecemeal attempts to change a specific organisational process (Taylor and Williams, 1994; Walston and Kimberley, 1997; De Cock and Hipkin, 1997; Leverment, Ackers and Preston, 1998). One description likens BPR to ‘TQM with steroids’ (Walston and Kimberley, 1997), despite what might be seen as a fundamental incongruity between the two approaches. Lack of precision surrounding the focus and methodology of BPR has been shown, in certain instances, to allow politically motivated actors to influence change, shaping potential outcomes in their favour (Buchanan, 1997). In the health sector, Walston and Kimberley (1997) found that over 60% of US hospitals claimed to be involved in reengineering initiatives, focusing on four main areas. 1. Personnel: decentralisation of organisational service, concentrating responsibility and authority for services on nursing units and optimising productive work time; downsizing; skill-mix alterations to optimise workers’ inputs. 2. Production redesign: reaggregating patients, reclustering organisational processes to increase productivity and quality; clinical resource management which seeks to optimise production flow processes by standardising improved treatment protocols. 3. Structure: flattening of organisational structures to increase information flows and facilitate decision making. 4. Non-core cost savings. Most research focuses on executives’ and employees’ perceptions rather than systematically examining the effects of reengineering on organisational effectiveness (Walston, Burns and Kimberley, 2000). Arndt and Bigelow (1998) highlight the tendency for hospitals to provide brief illustrations of steps that were taken or to report their hopes for cost reductions rather than actual results from reengineering. Such reports, while providing a glimpse of what individual hospitals do, make it impossible to assess the extent or success of reengineering programmes. In the NHS, evaluations at Leicester Royal Infirmary and at King’s College Hospital, London, have found that two of the central principles of BPR – the radical, revolutionary approach to change and the erasing of historical context Managing Change in the NHS 52 ■ Organisation-level change interventions ■ Business Process Reengineering (BPR) P A R T 2 : T O O L S , M O D E L S A N D A P P R O A C H E S : A S E L E C T I V E R E V I E W 55 process, reducing defects by two-thirds. Morale and job satisfaction increased (Cole, 1979). In a 1990 study of 313 organisations, 52% regarded their quality circle programme to be a success, 36% were undecided, and 12% deemed it unsuccessful (Lawler et al., 1992). Description and use In this approach, teams are responsible, and collectively accountable, for performance and monitoring of one or more tasks (often an entire product or service) and managing interpersonal processes within the team. Team performance and member satisfaction are shaped by how well the team functions in terms of communication and coordination between members; conflict and problem resolution; and generation and implementation of task- relevant decisions. Team functioning, in turn, is influenced by the level of autonomy, integrity of task, involvement in interactions with people and processes outside the task environment, and organisation support systems. Evidence Reviews of research evidence have found that in studies where productivity, costs and quality have been measured, improvements occurred in more than 85% (Cummings and Molloy, 1977). Pearce and Ravlin’s (1987) review of work design studies reported a strong positive relationship between the establishment of self-managed teams and attitudinal and economic gains. Meta-analyses provide more equivocal results. Beekun (1989) found that self- managed teams did produce increases in productivity and decreases in absenteeism but the effects varied widely. Macy, Bliese and Norton (1994), in an analysis of 131 American field experiments on work innovations, such as autonomous and semi-autonomous work groups, found that only when other organisational features such as reward systems, information systems and performance appraisal systems reflected and supported the team was the probability of positive organisational outcomes increased. Commentary With many of the concepts described in this review it is important to remember that they can be implemented in many different ways, not all of them observing the core principles although they may sport the label. It is all too easy for organisations to term their teams ‘self-managing’ while not giving them meaningful information or decision-making power. In these cases they should more properly be called ‘self-administrating’. See also ‘General commentary’, page 59. ■ Group-level change interventions ■ Self-managed teams ■ Self-managed teams ■ Group-level change interventions ■ Parallel learning structures A substantial and growing body of knowledge about individual change has been developed from the fields of psychology and sociology, and this must be considered when seeking to understand or to influence the behaviour of individuals (see ‘General commentary’, page 59). While this topic lies beyond the scope of the current publication, it is of critical importance to be aware of aspects of this body of knowledge and its significance for managing change in health. Description and use Innovation research refers to a body of literature that contains many models and approaches. Some of the specific areas within it provide insights that are particularly relevant to managers. (Because of the diversity of approaches involved we summarise some of the main findings of research in this area rather than discuss the evidence for each.) Originating in the marketing literature of the 1960s, innovation research has developed into a significant area in its own right (Rogers, 1983; Stocking, 1992). Research into the diffusion of innovations suggests that the propensity of individuals to change and implement new ideas, products or processes differs. The adoption process, from an individual perspective, has been depicted as a five-stage process, starting with: 1. establishing an awareness of the innovation in potential adopters and proceeding through: 2. persuasion, or arousal of interest 3. mental evaluation of the innovation 4. trial, to 5. implementation (Rogers, 1983; Van de Ven, 1993). Innovation research (Rogers, 1983) provides insights for change management in three ways. First, it identifies properties of innovations (in this case organisational changes) that are likely to meet with success. These are: 1. relative advantage, the degree to which it is perceived to be better than existing technology 2. compatibility, the perceived ‘fit’ of the innovation with existing structures, procedures and values 3. complexity, the degree of difficulty involved in learning about and implementing the innovation 4. trialability, the extent to which an innovation can be tried by potential adopters without major investment of time or resources 5. observability, the degree to which outcomes resulting from the adoption of an innovation are visible. Managing Change in the NHS 56 ■ Individual-level change interventions ■ Innovation research ■ Individual-level change interventions ■ Innovation research P A R T 2 : T O O L S , M O D E L S A N D A P P R O A C H E S : A S E L E C T I V E R E V I E W 57 Armed with this knowledge, managers can optimise and tailor their change programmes in order to maximise chances of success. In health, Stocking (1985) provides a more specific list about the key factors in the adoption of innovations or change. It includes: • the presence of identifiable enthusiasts for innovation or change • conducive power relationships (i.e. lack of conflict with national policies or professional opinion) • adaptability to local conditions • a general perception that the innovation meets current needs • minimal requirements for extra resources. More recent work in this field has been concerned to explore the social and cultural factors in promoting or hindering change (Pettigrew et al., 1992; Dawson et al., 1999). The second insight concerns the important role that organisational context plays in the adoption of innovation and change. Three environmental features have been linked with the propensity to innovate: 1. rapid change and heterogeneity in an organisation’s operating environment 2. effective external communication networks 3. presence of boundary-spanning individuals (Slappendel, 1996). The third insight that innovation research provides for change managers is that individuals have different attitudes to change per se. It categorises people in terms of their propensity to change, ranging from: • innovators (venturesome) to • early adopters (respectable) to • early majority (deliberate) to • late majority (sceptical) to • laggards (traditional). In addition to these attitudes, an individual’s reactions are greatly influenced by contextual factors involved. The extent to which people are more or less resistant, indifferent, or likely to lend support to change is affected by how they perceive the change affecting them. Reasons for resisting change include: • loss of control • too much uncertainty • surprise • confusion • loss of face • concerns about competence in a new context • increased workload • change fatigue • the view that costs outweigh benefits • past resentments • real threats. (Kanter et al., 1992; Dawson, 1996)■ Individual-level change interventions ■ Innovation research Getting to grips with the question If implementation is thought about quite separately from the planning and design of a change initiative, then it is likely that the initiative will already have failed. Successful change initiatives hardly ever follow a simple pattern of ‘thinking’ followed by ‘doing’. Instead, thinking informs doing and doing informs thinking throughout the process, in an iterative way. Thus, many of the models and tools discussed in this review can also be used when thinking about how to make change happen. For example, the Content, Context and Process Model offers a diagnostic checklist for assessing the likely reception of a particular intervention in a specific locale. Theory of Constraints looks at specific ways to remove bottlenecks in the system. Force field analysis suggests strategies for reducing the effect of forces which can prevent change occurring. A complex interplay is needed then between thinking and doing throughout the change process. Approaches discussed in Section 2.5 ■ Organisational development (OD) ■ Organisational learning and the Learning Organisation ■ Action research ■ Project management In this section we look at some highly influential approaches to implementation – OD, action research and organisational learning/the Learning Organisation – which between them can be applied at several different levels. Each suggests in different ways the importance of learning from change – and using key learning points to inform the next steps. But, on the ground, there is also a need to be able to think about and plan for distinct stages in the process. In other words, there is a real need for tangible beginnings, middles and ends. The tools associated with project management come into their own here. Other specific uses to which this and the other models discussed may be put will depend on the analyses conducted using models from other clusters. Description The term organisational development (or OD) is interpreted in different ways by different practitioners, some seeing it as a comprehensive organisation-wide development programme with particular underpinning principles and common approaches, others using it more loosely to describe any development programme within an organisation which is designed to meet organisational objectives as well as personal ones. 2.5 How can we make change happen? Managing Change in the NHS 60 ■ Organisational development (OD) ■ Organisational development (OD) P A R T 2 : T O O L S , M O D E L S A N D A P P R O A C H E S : A S E L E C T I V E R E V I E W 61 OD encompasses a huge area of management theory and practice. (For an overview of its scope and history see: Porras and Robertson, 1992; Cummings and Worley, 1997; French and Bell, 1999.) It can be defined as: ... a set of behavioural science-based theories, values, strategies, and techniques aimed at the planned change of organisational work setting for the purpose of enhancing individual development and improving organisational performance, through the alteration of organisational members’ on-the-job behaviours. (Porras and Robertson, 1992: 722) Figure 9 depicts a conceptual model of OD developed by Porras and Robertson (1992). Organisational change that results from OD interventions – for example, improvement in organisational performance or enhancement of individual development – comes about because of changes in individual members’ work behaviour. In turn, behaviour is shaped by the setting within which a member is situated. OD interventions view different aspects of this setting as levers for change that are able to prompt desired behaviours. These include: • organising arrangements – goals, strategies, structure, policies and procedures, administrative systems, reward systems • social factors – culture, management style, interaction processes, informal patterns and networks, individual attributes • physical setting – space configuration, ambience, interior design • technology – tools, equipment and machinery, IT, job design, work flow design, technical expertise, technical systems and procedures. Use Depending on the type of organisational change sought, initiatives may be targeted directly at individuals in order to secure specific behaviour change, or they may be directed at a group or organisational level in order to capitalise upon the leverage and moderating behavioural effects provided by membership of a social unit. Evidence There have been several comprehensive reviews and meta-analyses that summarise empirical evidence regarding the effectiveness of OD as a whole. Porras and Berg (1978) screened 160 studies and identified 35 that focused on clear OD interventions and were evaluated by rigorous methods. They found that where outcomes (for example, profitability, turnover, productivity) were measured, they showed substantive positive changes in 51% of cases. In cases where process measures were used (for example, decision making, interaction, goal emphasis) positive changes were found in 46% of cases. Katzell and Guzzo (1983) reviewed 207 field experiments of 11 psychological approaches to improving employee productivity (including sociotechnical systems, goal setting, training and instruction, appraisal and feedback) and found gains in 87% of studies. Golembiewski et al. (1982) reviewed 574 OD initiatives and found that over 80% showed positive outcomes. ■ Organisational development (OD) Guzzo, Jette and Katzell (1985) conducted a meta-analysis on 207 studies and found that interventions raised worker productivity by one-half standard deviation. Porras and Robertson (1992) found that 38% of interventions resulted in positive organisational change, 52.5% resulted in no change, and 9.5% resulted in a negative change. See also ‘General commentary’, page 59. Managing Change in the NHS 62 Figure 9: Change-based organisational framework Porras and Robertson (1992) ■ Organisational development (OD) For copyright reasons this figure is available only in the printed edition of this Review P A R T 2 : T O O L S , M O D E L S A N D A P P R O A C H E S : A S E L E C T I V E R E V I E W 65 Evidence The concept of the Learning Organisation is increasingly popular as organisations, subjected to exhortations to become more adaptable and responsive to change, attempt to develop structures and systems that nurture innovation (Peters and Waterman, 1982; Kanter, 1989; Senge, 1990). There is little hard evidence of the effect of the theory of organisational learning in practice. Argyris and Schön state (1996) that they are unaware of any organisation that has fully implemented a double-loop learning system. In the context of health, there are a handful of articles that discuss issues surrounding the use of organisational learning in the NHS (e.g. Davies and Nutley, 2000) but no empirical or evaluative reports. See also ‘General commentary’, page 59. ■ Organisational learning and the Learning Organisation ■ The Learning Organisation Table 5: The main characteristics of the Learning Organisation Learning Organisations have flat managerial hierarchies that enhance opportunities for employee involvement in the organisation. Members are empowered to make relevant decisions. Such structures support teamwork, strong lateral relations, and networking across organisational boundaries both internal and external (e.g. project teams). These features promote systems thinking (see page 16), information sharing and openness to information necessary for organisational learning. Temporary forms are favoured as they cater for current needs but can be shaped through experimentation to respond to future changes. Learning Organisations require information beyond that used in traditional organisations where information is generally used for control purposes (single-loop learning). Transformational change (see page 16) requires more sophisticated information systems that facilitate rapid acquisition, processing and sharing of rich, complex information that enables effective knowledge management. People are recognised as the creators and users of organisational learning. Accordingly, human resource management focuses on provision and support of individual learning. Appraisal and reward systems are concerned to measure long-term performance and to promote the acquisition and sharing of new skills and knowledge. Learning Organisations have strong cultures that promote openness, creativity and experimentation among members. They encourage members to acquire, process and share information, to nurture innovation and provide the freedom to try new things, to risk failure and to learn from mistakes. Like most interventions aimed at securing significant organisational change, organisational learning depends heavily on effective leadership. Leaders model the openness, risk taking and reflection necessary for learning and communicate a compelling vision of the Learning Organisation, providing empathy, support and personal advocacy needed to lead others towards it. Structure Information systems Human resource practices Organisational culture Leadership Description Action research is a way of using research in an interventionist way, so that the researcher is both a discoverer of problems and solutions, and is involved in decisions about what is to be done and why. It sees organisational change as a cyclical process where theory guides practice and practice in turn informs theory. The concept of action research can be traced back to Lewin (1947). It elaborates on the transitional model of unfreezing, moving and refreezing (see page 15), adding feedback loops between the stages and promoting iteration between the thinking and acting processes of change management. It puts into practice Lewin’s (1946) assertion that: ... theory should not only be used to guide practice and its evaluation but that, equally important, results of evaluation should inform theory in a cyclical process of fact-finding, planning, action and evaluation. Specifically, action research is a process that involves: • systematically collecting research data about an ongoing system relative to some objective, need, or goal of that system • feeding these data back into the system • taking action by altering selected variables within the system based both on the data and on assumptions about how the system functions • evaluating the results of actions by collecting more data (French and Bell, 1999). It results from: ... an involvement by the researcher with members of an organisation over a matter which is of genuine concern to them and in which there is an intent by the organisation members to take action based on the intervention. (Eden and Huxham, 1996) In other words, it involves a researcher working as a consultant with a group of participants. The participants may be ‘pure subjects’ or ‘full collaborating partners’ (Rowan, 1981, quoted in Eden and Huxham, 1996), the role of the researcher changing accordingly. The principle is that if participants are engaged in understanding their situation more fully, they design actions that they themselves will take which will move them toward the aim of their change programme. Use Action research forms the foundation of many approaches to change including Soft Systems Methodology (page 34) and organisational development (page 60). An illustrative example is provided below. Managing Change in the NHS 66 ■ Action research ■ Action research P A R T 2 : T O O L S , M O D E L S A N D A P P R O A C H E S : A S E L E C T I V E R E V I E W 67 Changing mental health service delivery Independent researchers (two experienced community case managers on secondment) analysed 100 consecutive admissions to a psychiatric in- patient unit using structured interviews with patients, carers, referring doctors and community case managers as well as retrospective review of case notes. In a context where admissions are seen as a poor outcome, information was gathered about the care that the patient had received prior to admission, the services utilised, the unfolding of the illness and any warning signs of impending illness that had been noted. Each month a summary of findings was provided to staff via a verbal presentation. Feedback from staff about the findings, their implied meanings or the analysis was encouraged. From this interaction with staff, new questions were raised for the researchers to investigate and slowly ideas about how to improve the service were generated. Initially staff were defensive of the findings, feeling criticised. They spent most of the early interviews and feedback sessions explaining why the observations of poor-quality care were invalid. Eventually they came to realise the criticisms were not of their individual practice but of the system in which they were working. In later interviews, the case managers appeared less defensive of what had precipitated an admission. Instead they were more likely to include requests for advice about how to deal with difficult situations in the future. Eventually positive feedback about the service was received. Source: Tobin, Dakos and Urbanc (1997) Berwick (1998) has advocated the use of small-scale, short-cycle tests based on a Plan-Do-Study (reflect)-Act (PSDA) learning cycle (see 3.3 ‘Developing evidence for local action’). He suggests that this particular form of action research enables health care teams to learn on the basis of action and its observed effects rather than on the basis of theory alone. These are now being enacted in the NHS, for example within the Cancer Services Collaborative. Evidence Action research has been widely applied in management research in various forms and has been used to secure both first- and second-order change (Chisholm and Elden, 1993; French and Bell, 1999). Success has been found to be largely dependent on organisational context (Chisholm and Elden, 1993) with difficulties rooted in political and interpersonal conflict between researchers and managers (Gavin, 1984; Santalainen and Hunt, 1988). In health, action research has been used successfully in a variety of change programmes (for example: Shani and Eberhardt, 1987; Barker and Barker, 1994; Potter, Morgan and Thompson, 1994; Cullen, 1998). See also ‘General commentary’, page 59. ■ Action research For a simplified hypothetical example of organisational change from a project management perspective see Figure 10. Extremely complex projects, such as large engineering and IT or significant organisational change initiatives, often comprise a series of projects, grouped together into a programme. In these cases, discrete sets of activity and constituent parts of the overall project management process (e.g. the process of defining objectives and analysing context, constraints, stakeholders, and risk) may be viewed as stand-alone projects. Evidence There is little explicit research on the effectiveness of project management as a means to secure organisational change. In the NHS, the PRINCE project management approach has been used to guide the introduction of IT systems since 1989 (for a detailed description see Roberts and Ludvigsen, 1998). Commentary Project management methods are designed for projects – situations in which there is a defined beginning and end and in which a discrete and identifiable set of sub-tasks must be completed. They allow monitoring of completion of those activities. They do not in themselves aim to achieve changes in organisational culture, for example, although activities that contribute to such a change may be scheduled in this way. See also ‘General commentary’, page 59. Managing Change in the NHS 70 ■ Project management P A R T 2 : T O O L S , M O D E L S A N D A P P R O A C H E S : A S E L E C T I V E R E V I E W 71 F ig u re 1 0 : P ro je c t m a n a g in g a f lu v a c c in a ti o n p ro g ra m m e i n p ri m a ry c a re ■ Project management Fl u va cc in at io n p ro g ra m m e K ey In e ac h bo x th e ta sk is b rie fly id en tif ie d in th e up pe r ha lf. In th e lo w er le ft- ha nd s id e is th e nu m be r of th e ta sk (a s be lo w ). In th e lo w er r ig ht -h an d si de is th e nu m be r of w ee ks th at ta sk s ho ul d ta ke . 1. P ra ct ic e ne ed s to e st im at e as a cc ur at el y as p os si bl e th e lik el y de m an d fo r va cc in es fr om pr ac tic e po pu la tio n, t ha t is , n ee ds t o co ns id er v ul ne ra bl e an d el ig ib le t ar ge t gr ou ps a nd lik el y ta ke -u p. 2. S uf fic ie nt s up pl ie s ne ed t o be o rd er ed fr om s up pl ie r. 3. D el iv er y pe rio d – es tim at ed b y su pp lie r as 4 –6 w ee ks . T hi s pa rt o f t he p ro je ct is la rg el y ou t of t he c on tr ol o f t he p ra ct ic e. A s ho rt en ed d el iv er y pe rio d co ul d en ab le t he p ro je ct t o pr oc ee d m or e qu ic kl y. 4. C lie nt s ne ed t o be id en tif ie d by n am e an d ch ec ke d to s ee if t he y ar e ab le t o co m e to pr ac tic e fo r im m un is at io n. 5. A pp oi nt m en ts t o be s et u p fo r 20 s pe ci al im m un is at io n se ss io ns a t th e pr ac tic e. 6. A gr ee m en ts n ee d to b e re ac he d w ith a tt ac he d di st ric t nu rs in g (D N ) t ea m t o pi ck u p th e va cc in at io ns fo r ho us eb ou nd c lie nt s in t he t ar ge t gr ou ps – d is cu ss io n ne ed ed o n sh ar in g of re so ur ce s an d jo in t w or ki ng . 7. N ew m em be rs t o bo th p ra ct ic e nu rs in g (P N ) a nd D N t ea m s ne ed t ra in in g up da te s. 8. H om e vi si ts t o be a rr an ge d fo r th os e un ab le t o at te nd p ra ct ic e – in fo rm at io n ne ed s to b e gi ve n to D N t ea m s to a cc om m od at e w ith in t he ir no rm al w or ki ng s ch ed ul es . 9. A ct ua l p er io d of im m un is at io ns – 6 w ee ks a llo w ed . 10 . I nf or m at io n fo llo w in g im m un is at io n ne ed s to b e in pu t. 11 . C la im s fo r pa ym en t by p ra ct ic e m ad e un de r ge ne ra l m ed ic al s er vi ce s (G M S ). 4. Id en tif ic at io n of c lie nt s 4 5 5. C al l t o ap po in tm en ts at s ur ge ry 5 10 1. In iti al n ee ds as se ss m en t 1 5 2. O rd er v ac ci ne fro m s up pl ie rs 2 2 3. D el iv er y pe rio d 3 42 8. T ra in in g of n ew P N s an d D N s 7 2 11 . F in an ci al c la im s un de r G M S 11 5 10 . D at a in pu t/ up da te d at ab as e 10 10 9. Im m un is at io ns 9 42 7. D is cu ss io n w ith D N s 6 5 6. A rr an ge m en ts o f ho m e vi si ts 8 2 ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ S up pl ie d by A nd re w P at er so n, D ire ct or o f C om m un ity a nd P rim ar y S er vi ce s, E nf ie ld C om m un ity C ar e N H S T ru st Managing Change in the NHS 72 P A R T 3 : R E F L E C T I O N S O N E V I D E N C E Much time and publicly provided money are devoted to change in health and health care settings. Health care managers and other leaders, therefore, bear a responsibility to adopt practices that are supported by evidence or by well- formulated concepts that draw on well-tested theory in other settings. The evidence available A large proportion of the generic change management literature attempts to define such concepts, describe how they should be implemented, and detail the benefits of implementation. Empirically based publications are relatively rare and, of those that are available, many describe research that is poorly conducted, or lacking a conceptual framework, appropriate research design, analytical rigour, or independent investigators (Shortell et al., 1995). The situation in health services research is similar. A summary of the relatively few well-conducted empirical studies (see also ‘Approach and method’, page 10) of change management approaches conducted in health care organisations published over last 10 years is shown in Appendix 2. In the NHS context, there have been a number of well-conducted evaluation studies on TQM and BPR (for example, Joss and Kogan, 1995; Packwood et al., 1998; Bowns and McNulty, 2000) but little comprehensive research on factors that shape organisational change since Pettigrew et al.’s (1992) in-depth study of strategic change. However, formalised research evidence is not the only source of knowledge about ‘what works’. Managers argue that much of the knowledge about the effectiveness of change management techniques in the context of the NHS is tacit in nature, yet to be codified and rigorously studied. This suggests that the evidence most practitioners currently use is derived from their own and colleagues’ experience, and arguments against the use of evidence in this area may be seen as reminiscent of early arguments against evidence-based medicine. The nature of appropriate evidence However, it is important to appreciate that the type of evidence useful in this arena may differ from the type that can valuably guide much clinical practice. When investigating the management of change, what is needed are research methods that allow for the process of change to be explored and understood, rather than methods that concentrate on measuring the outcome. Research on the service delivery and organisational aspects of health care has been carried out over recent years, funded through the NHS Research & Development (R & D) programme, but the main focus, particularly of this R & D programme, has been on health technology assessment. Associated with this has been the development of methods to evaluate health technologies and the development of a ‘hierarchy of evidence’ as proposed by the Cochrane Collaboration for systematic reviews. These developments have tended to prioritise quantitative methods, and in particular randomised controlled trials (RCTs). 3.2 Developing an evidence base 75 Managing Change in the NHS The complexity of health service delivery and organisation requires that a broader range of research methods needs to be considered for providing evidence on these issues (Fulop et al., forthcoming). Methods traditionally used to evaluate health technologies will not, on their own, be sufficient to address many of these questions. In particular, methods drawn from the social sciences and developed in other areas may also usefully be applied to health care settings. The NCCSDO has therefore brought together a range of methods from different disciplines (including sociology, economics, epidemiology, policy analysis and history) to facilitate the debate on how these different disciplines and methods can be applied to service delivery and organisation. This work on service delivery and organisation research methods is already well advanced and due for publication as a book in 2001 (Fulop et al., forthcoming). Two important messages, however, have already emerged from the work. • First, a range of methods needs to be considered and many service delivery and organisation research questions require a combination of methods. • Secondly, there is a range of views among these disciplines about what counts as evidence and what criteria should be used to judge the quality of the evidence that any particular method produces. For example, in action research (see page 66) the researcher is not independent from the change agent (they are one and the same). However, for many other social scientists, one of the criteria for good-quality research is that the researcher should be independent of the change intervention. It is not the purpose of this review to pre-empt the wider debate about how to establish what the criteria for good-quality research should be. Rather it is to encourage and inform debate on the issue in acknowledgement of the range of views that exist. Many of the methods from other disciplines require skills of the researcher that differ from the skills traditionally valued in technology assessment research. For example, action research requires the following abilities and aptitudes: • an ability to engage with participants • an ability to encourage openness and candour • an ability to reflect on the researcher’s own pre-understanding of the situation, and how this may influence the interpretation of findings • a preparedness to support interventions designed by the participants and not by the researcher. This may require skills development on the part of those whose career has focused on more quantitative research methods, or the development of new kinds of researchers. 76 P A R T 3 : R E F L E C T I O N S O N E V I D E N C E Responsibility for generating evidence and developing theory Although generating evidence and developing theory in the field of change management may be seen by busy managers as an additional (even insupportable) burden, especially as the research skills may not be easy to find, managers and other health care leaders have a responsibility to generate evidence about change processes and outcomes, to present it in a form that can be useful to others, and to contribute to the development of theory. In order to do this they must build this outcome into the design of the change intervention, as an integral part of it. Currently, large numbers of anecdotal accounts are published of changes in individual settings. These may prompt some interest and enthusiasm on the part of others and this in itself is valuable. However, the time and resources put into the change intervention and the generation of these accounts could yield much greater benefit if an evaluation process were designed at the beginning, and/or sufficient additional information provided to allow it to be incorporated into meta-analyses. We suggest, therefore, that a discussion takes place between members of appropriate academic centres and practitioners, facilitated by the NCCSDO, with the aim of establishing some guidelines for the evaluation of change interventions, and for the format of published studies. We further suggest that there should be, within major health care organisations, expertise on research and evaluation of this kind. It may be that this would reside more comfortably within the Human Resources/Organisation Developmental function than that of Research & Development, where the expertise in other approaches may lead to an undervaluing of these qualitative case study approaches. 77 Managing Change in the NHS Large-scale organisational change in the context of multi- professional organisations Change in the NHS is never likely to be straightforward and linear, not least because of the size and complexity of the organisation. Change also takes place in the context of multi-professional groupings and organisations. It is now nearly a decade since the publication of the last major studies on organisational change in the NHS (Pettigrew et al., 1992) and the time is ripe for investigation of the following. • What are the roles of managers and clinical professionals, for example, in the implementation of the NHS Plan? • Is the relationship between these two groups changing? How will implementation of the Plan affect it? • What alternative models of organisation and management are emerging in service settings? What contribution can they make to management knowledge? Importance of context With the development of networks, partnerships and other forms of joint working, health and health care organisations are moving into relationships with a variety of different organisations. Some of these relationships involve joint accountabilities and joint governance arrangements. In the past, worthy collaborative initiatives have foundered because of different funding streams and different regulatory frameworks. • What are the policy and regulatory factors which facilitate or impede the implementation of change in these circumstances? • How do contextual factors affect the feasibility of offering incentives for changes in behaviour? How can different forms of incentive be used in different settings? Leadership in the NHS While there is a substantial literature on the concept of leadership in the private and public sectors, there are issues relating to leadership in the health sector generally, and in the NHS specifically, which need to be explored, particularly now that the pivotal role of leadership has been highlighted in the National Plan. These issues include the following. • The complexities of leadership in large, multi-professional organisations, such as hospitals, where there are sets of hierarchies among different professional groups, for instance among doctors, nurses, midwives, professions allied to medicine, other scientific and professional staff, and managerial and administrative staff. • The role of leadership in complex settings, both within and across organisations, where interrelationships, interdependencies and awareness of different views of purpose are vital. • The role of ‘new’ leadership skills, such as the management of influence and networking, in addition to ‘traditional’ leadership attributes and skills. Drivers of change Systems require a source of energy if they are to shift and change. The energy, or impetus, for change can take many different forms, and can be generated from within an organisation or emanate from outside. Leadership style is a key, but not the only, source of energy. Research that identifies the most effective sources of energy, as well as restraining forces, in different contexts would be valuable. 80 P A R T 3 : R E F L E C T I O N S O N E V I D E N C E • Where can the sources of energy for change be found and harnessed? • Is there a correlation between the nature of the source of energy and the success of the associated change intervention? Innovation research The modernisation agenda for the NHS requires a high degree of innovation in the models of health care delivery. As these models are developed they will need to be evaluated, using naturally occurring experiments of the sort referred to above. However, the factors that lead to the successful development of these models and the rate of their adoption also need to be explored. For example, the characteristics of an innovation that have been found to influence the success and rate of adoption are as much to do with the perceptions of the players as they are inherent in the innovation itself. • What factors influence these perceptions? What interventions may influence them positively? • Who are the key opinion-formers in different kinds of NHS organisation? How can these groups be engaged in design and evaluation of innovations? Learning approaches In complex organisations such as the NHS, inquiry and problem-solving involve many different staff groups and hence require an ability to share learning. There is thus increasing interest in organisational learning and ‘the Learning Organisation’. • How are these concepts being applied in the NHS, and are they effective? • How do these concepts work alongside different, contrasting approaches such as performance management? • Which models encourage double-loop rather than single-loop learning? • Which models of action research will achieve the desired change in different contexts? • What policy context favours the development of attributes of a Learning Organisation? • In what contexts are PDSA cycles undertaken? In what contexts do they yield changes in organisation of service delivery? Process modelling Effective change requires that we understand the way the current situation works and that we are clear about how we want the new one to be different. • How effective are different modelling approaches, for example process flow diagrams, as a means of engaging staff, especially medical staff, in debate about improvements? 81 Managing Change in the NHS 82 85 A P P E N D I C E S Appendix 2 Summary of empirical research on effectiveness of change models in health care organisations 1990 –1999 Author (date) Barker and Barker (1994) Potter et al. (1994) Tobin et al. (1997) Dawson et al. (1999) Wood, Ferlie and Fitzgerald (1998) Buchanan (1997) Ho, Chan and Kidwell (1999) Leverment et al. (1998) Context US UK Australia UK UK UK US and Canada UK Type of initiative Action research Action research Action research Behaviour change Behaviour change BPR BPR BPR Methodology Case study Case study Case study; patient survey (n = 100) used to inform change Case studies Case studies Case study Survey of hospital executives; sample 1111 US and Canadian hospitals; 19.4% response rate; n = 215 Case study Main findings Reports how change in an interdisciplinary inpatient unit was secured through needs assessment instrument and stakeholder participation in change. Action research methodology used to improve quality in three hospital departments. Change secured through iteration of patient-centred research and staff discussion to identify problems, develop strategies for change and reduce resistance to change. Highlights problems with rationalistic models of behaviour change such as those that underpin evidence-based medicine (EBM). Challenges rationalistic conception of change that underpins EBM. BPR is difficult to implement in the politicised context of hospital. Improved service quality and enhanced financial performance are driving forces for BPR. Despite reporting moderate success in achieving these objectives, respondents identified lack of staff co- operation, buy-in and skill as important factors that derail BPR implementation efforts. They described success as dependent upon top management commitment and bottom-up approach. Highlights a number of controversial issues unique to health care professionals particularly in the areas of job redesign, multiskilling, and empowerment. Note: studies are listed by type of initiative in alphabetical order. 86 Managing Change in the NHS Author (date) Packwood et al. (1998) Walston and Kimberley (1997) Walston and Bogue (1999) Walston et al. (2000) Woodward et al. (1999) Pettigrew et al. (1992) Aiken, Sochalski and Lake (1997) Context UK US US US Canada UK US Type of initiative BPR BPR BPR BPR BPR Content, Context and Process Outcomes Methodology Case study Case studies; 14 hospitals; 255 interviews Survey A first-difference multivariate regression used to examine the effects of reengineering (survey of 2306 urban US hospitals >100 beds; 29.4% response rate; n = 497 hospitals) Longitudinal survey of effects on staff Case studies Case studies Main findings Gains from BPR are contentious, radical change is difficult in public sector organisations, senior management commitment is necessary to secure change. Describes range of processes targeted for reengineering; identifies barriers and facilitators; most respondents indicated that re-engineering was worthwhile. Reengineering did not statistically improve a hospital’s cost position. Authors suggest that providing clear and consistent feedback, codifying the reengineering process and involving executives in core changes are key means for improving reengineering outcomes. In a national sample of hospitals, reengineering alone was not found to improve the cost-competitive position. Significant increase in depression, anxiety, emotional exhaustion, and job insecurity in first year. Second year reported decreased teamwork, role clarity and increasing job demands. Identifies receptive and non- receptive contexts for change. Calls for more research into how context affects clinical outcomes. 87 A P P E N D I C E S Author (date) Huz et al. (1997) Pronk and Boucher (1999) Ziegenfuss, Munzenrider and Lartin Drake (1998) Bringelson and Bassappa (1998) Counte et al. (1992) Edwards, Collinson and Rees (1998) Joss (1994) Context US US US US US UK UK Type of initiative Systems thinking System thinking Systems thinking TQM TQM TQM TQM Methodology Pilot study for evaluation of systems thinking Case studies Project report Survey Experimental design; survey of employees, half exposed to TQM, half not Case studies (6 organisations); survey of 280 employees and qualitative interviews Case studies Main findings Presents a framework for evaluation of systems thinking, in the context of integrating mental health and vocational rehabilitation services. A systems thinking approach to obesity prevention and treatment in youth has great potential. HORIZONS project aimed to maintain and enhance quality of patient care; to improve the quality of working life; to accomplish this in budget- neutral manner. Core ideas include systems thinking, interactive planning and idealised design. TQM programmes are not as effective as promised owing to poor understanding of its principles. Among those exposed to TQM, significant associations were found between increased job satisfaction, more favourable opinions of the organisation and more favourable opinions of their work, than those not exposed. Success in quality programmes linked with high job security and a co-operative relationship with trades unions. A favourable view of quality was strongest where monitoring was most intense. Three-year evaluation of TQM at NHS demonstration sites. Mixed results. No improvements in health status found. Highlights importance of top management commitment and need for regard for cultural, structural and systems context. Managing Change in the NHS In the 1980s Checkland developed a methodology for working with soft systems, those where ‘the problem does not lend itself to being quantified; in complex problem situations, messy, ill-defined, ill-structured, not independent of people and where there may be no agreement about appropriate objectives’ (Daellenbach, 1994: 533). Up to this point, much systems theory literature was highly technical and clearly targeted at specialist audiences. Only in the 1980s did systems thinking begin to make substantial inroads into the management literature designed for the lay reader. One of the first to popularise the approach with practising managers was Peter Senge of Massachussetts Institute of Technology (MIT). It was also incorporated into a wider field of study about individual and organisational learning, heavily influenced by the work of such thinkers as the organisational psychologist Chris Argyris and the physicist David Bohm. More recently, systems thinking has attracted the attention of researchers, consultants, planners and practitioners in the field of health. For example, Pratt, Gordon and Plamping (1999) have applied whole system working (see also page 17) to intractable problems that involve health care. The systems they have explored involve many stakeholders, including other statutory agencies, users, communities, and voluntary organisations. The approach has been explained as follows. At its simplest level, whole system working is a way of thinking about and designing meetings that help people to express their differing experiences, to identify possibilities for action and commit to change. At a more profound level, it is an approach to organisational development that views groups of people who come together around a shared purpose as living systems. It recognises that the way in which living systems adapt and evolve is determined by the way interconnected parts relate to each other, as well as the way individual parts behave. (Pratt et al., 1999: 3) In the 1980s and 1990s systems thinking was challenged by those who suggested that complex dynamic systems could never be wholly understood because they exhibited chaotic behaviour. Chaos theory suggests that the behaviour of complex, non-linear dynamic systems will never be entirely predictable, and that outcomes may be dependent on tiny changes to initial conditions. The term ‘chaos’ in this context should be distinguished from that promulgated by management gurus in the 1980s, such as Peters (1987), where its sense is limited to the accelerating pace of change brought about by technological innovation. The idea of chaos theory attracted much media interest and management theorists rushed to apply it, often with disappointing results. Chaos is now considered to be a subset of complexity theory and as such has been applied more successfully to organisational research (Battram, 1998). Consequently, the principles of systems thinking described here are still applicable and useful and our understanding of organisations will still be greatly enhanced by taking a systemic rather than a reductive approach. 90 A P P E N D I C E S Below are suggested areas of activity and expertise that health professionals and managers should have access to from a local OD resource. These are listed by reference to earlier sections in Parts 1 and 2. ‘What is meant by ‘change’?’ and ‘Organisational change in the NHS’ • Disseminating knowledge of recent relevant research, for example, innovation research, including that from other industries • Removing jargon from such research to render it user-friendly How can we understand complexity, interdependence and fragmentation? • Helping people to increase their understanding of the interdependent factors involved in change • Facilitating discussions within teams using models, such as 7S • Sharing knowledge of environmental factors affecting change • Acting as a resource to help people construct process flow charts and influence diagrams Why do we need to change? • Providing help with conducting a SWOT analysis or with interpreting the findings Who and what can change? • Promoting understanding of organisational psychology and sociology as applied to change • Providing expertise on change interventions at individual, group and organisational levels • Offering some diagnostic tools to identify individual role preferences and aspirations How can we make change happen? • Facilitating multidisciplinary discussion forums, so that learning can occur across professions, disciplines and status • Providing skills in action research • Providing a database of people in the organisation with practical knowledge of change management, to encourage networking and learning • Promoting organisational learning, by for example, challenging single-loop learning, using double-loop learning, and encouraging deutero-learning • Advising on basic statistics and how to analyse and display them • Acting as a resource for constructing project management network diagrams Appendix 4 Development of a change management resource 91 Managing Change in the NHS Appendix 5 Participants at the change management workshop and seminar The following people attended the workshop ‘Change Management and Quality Improvement’, held in London on 4 April 2000. Debra Humphris, Director, New Generation, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Biological Sciences, University of Southampton Annabelle Mark, Reader in Organisational Behaviour and Health Management, Department of Human Resource Management, Business School, Middlesex University Huw Richards, Fellow, Education and Leadership Development, King’s Fund, London John Riordan, Medical Director, North West London Hospitals NHS Trust Anne Walker, Senior Research Fellow, Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen Laura Wellings, Clinical Audit Projects Officer, Clinical Audit Department, Lewisham Hospital NHS Trust The following people attended the seminar ‘Managing Change in the NHS’, held in London on 12 July 2000. Paul Bate, Professor of Health Services Management Development, Health Services Management Centre, University of Birmingham David Bawden, Developement Team Manager, Commission for Health Improvement Jonathan Boyce, Acute Health Care Lead, Audit Commission Donna Covey, Director, Association of Community Health Councils England and Wales Jennifer Dixon, Director of Health Care Policy, King’s Fund, London Michael Dunning, Editor, ImpAct Debra Humphris, Director, New Generation, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Biological Sciences, University of Southampton Rod King, Project Manager, Transforming Healthcare Delivery Programme, King’s College Hospital NHS Trust Yi Mien Koh, Director of Public Health, Kensington & Chelsea and Westminster Health Authority Annabelle Mark, Reader in Organisational Behaviour and Health Management, Department of Human Resource Management, Business School, Middlesex University Matt Muijen, Director, The Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health David Patterson, Consultant Cardiologist and Dean of Medical School, Whittington Hospital NHS Trust Peter Pillay, Deputy Chief Executive, Parkside Health NHS Trust John Riordan, Medical Director, North West London Hospitals NHS Trust Jenny Secker, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Mental Health Services Development, King’s College, University of London Graham Thornicroft, Professor of Health Services Research Department, Section of Community Psychiatry (PRiSM), Institute of Psychiatry Dawn Wakeling, Director of Quality, MIND NCCSDO Maureen Dalziel, Director Naomi Fulop, Deputy Director Pamela Timms, Programme Manager Gráinne Kavanagh, Deputy Programme Manager Facilitators (12 July 2000) Marsaili Cameron Valerie Iles Jud Stone 92 R E F E R E N C E S Crosby, P. 1989. Let’s Talk Quality. New York: McGraw-Hill Cullen, J. 1998. The needle and the damage done. Human Relations 51: 1543-64 Cummings, T. and Molloy, E. 1977. Improving Productivity and the Quality of Work Life. New York: Praeger Cummings, T. and Worley, C. 1997. Organisation Development and Change. Cincinnati, Ohio: South-Western College Publishing Cummings, T., Mohrman, S., Mohrman, A. and Ledford, G. 1985. Organisation design for the future. In Doing Research that is Useful for Theory and Practice, ed. E. Lawler III, A. Mohrman, S. Mohrman, G. Ledford, and T. Cummings. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Currie, W. L. 1999. Revisiting management innovation and change programmes: strategic vision or tunnel vision? Omega-International Journal of Management Science 27(6): 647-60 Daellenbach, H. G. 1994. Systems and Decision Making. A Management Science Approach. Chichester: Wiley Davies, H. and Nutley, S. 2000. Developing learning organisations in the new NHS. British Medical Journal 320: 998-1001 Davies H. T. O., Nutley, S.M. and Mannion, R. 2000. Organisational culture and quality of health care. Quality in Health Care 9: 111-19 Dawson, S. 1999. Managing, organising and performing in health care: what do we know and how can we learn? In Organisational Behaviour in Health Care, eds A. Mark and S. Dopson. London: Macmillan Dawson, S. J. N. D. 1996. Analysing Organisations. Hampshire: Macmillan Dawson, S. J. N. D., Sutherland, K., Dopson, S., and Miller, R. 1999. Changing clinical practice: views about the management of adult asthma. Quality in Health Care 8: 253-61 De Cock, C. and Hipkin, I. 1997. TQM and BPT: beyond the myth. Journal of Management Studies 34(5): 659-75 Deming, W. E. 1986. Out of the Crisis. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Department of Health (DOH). 1998. A First Class Service: Quality in the New NHS. London: The Stationery Office Department of Health (DOH). 2000. The NHS Plan. London: The Stationery Office Eden, C. and Huxham, C. 1996. Action research for the study of organizations. In Handbook of Organization Studies, eds S. Clegg and W. Nord. London and Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications Edwards, P., Collinson, M. and Rees, C. 1998. The determinants of employee responses to total management: six case studies. Organisation Studies 19(3): 449-75 Edwards, R., Brown, J., Hodgson, P., Kyle, D., Reed, D. and Wallace, B. 1999. An action plan for tobacco control at regional level. Public Health 113(4): 165-70 Elden, M. and Chisholm, R. 1993. Emerging varieties of action research. Human Relations 46: 121-42 Frame, J. D. 1994. The New Project Management. San Francisco: Jossey Bass French, W. and Bell, C. 1999. Organisation Development. London: Prentice-Hall Fulop, N. and Allen, P. 2000. National Listening Exercise: Report of the Findings. London: NCCSDO Fulop, N., Allen, P., Clarke, A. and Black, N. (eds) (forthcoming). Studying the Organisation and Delivery of Health Services: Research Methods. London: Routledge Gavin, J. 1984. Survey feedback: the perspectives of science and practice. Group and Organisation Studies 9(1): 29-70 Glaister, K. and Falshaw, J. 1999. Strategic planning: still going strong? Long Range Planning 32(1): 107-16 Goldratt, E. 1997. Critical Chain. Croton-on-Hudson: North River Press Goldratt, E. and Cox, J. 1993. The Goal. Aldershot: Gower 95 Managing Change in the NHS Golembiewski, R., Proehl, C. and Sink, D. 1982. Estimating success of OD applications. Training and Development Journal 72: 86-95 Gordon, J., Hazlett, C., Tencate, O., Mann, K., Kilminster, S., Prince, K., O’Driscoll, E., Snell, L., and Newble, D. 2000. Strategic planning in medical education: enhancing the learning environment for students in clinical settings. Medical Education 34(10): 841-50 Guzzo, R. A., Jette, R. D. and Katzell, R. A. 1985. The effects of psychologically based intervention programs on worker productivity: a meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology 38(2): 275-91 Hackman, J. R. and Wageman, R. 1995. Total quality management – empirical, conceptual and practical issues. Administrative Science Quarterly 40(2): 309-42 Hall, G., Rosenthal, J. and Wade, J. 1993. How to make reengineering really work. Harvard Business Review, Nov/Dec: 109-11 Hammer, M. 1990. Reengineering work: don’t automate, obliterate. Harvard Business Review, July/Aug: 104-12 Hammer, M. and Champy, J. 1993. Reengineering the Corporation: a Manifesto for Business Revolution. London: Nicholas Brealy Hammer, M. and Stanton, S. 1995. The Reengineering Revolution. New York: Harper Collins Hill, T. and Westbrook, R. 1997. SWOT analysis: It’s time for a product recall. Long Range Planning 30(1): 46-52 Hindle, T., Checkland, P., Mumford, M. and Worthington, D. 1995. Development of a methodology for multidisciplinary action research – a case study. Journal of the Operational Research Society 46(4): 453-64 Hindle, T., Roberts, E. and Worthington, D. 1998. Specialty location decisions in the reformed NHS: a case study. Health Services Management Research 11(3): 174-81 Ho, S. J. K., Chan, L. L. and Kidwell, R. E. 1999. The implementation of business process re- engineering in American and Canadian Hospitals. Health Care Management Review 24(2): 19-31 Hughes, D. 1996. NHS managers as rhetoricians: a case of culture management? Sociology of Health and Illness 18(3): 291-314 Huz, S., Andersen, D. F., Richardson, G. P. and Boothroyd, R. 1997. A framework for evaluating systems thinking interventions: An experimental approach to mental health systems change. System Dynamics Review 13(2): 149-69 Ishikawa, K. 1985. What is Total Quality Control? The Japanese Way. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Jarrar, Y. F. and Aspinwall, E. M. 1999. Business process re-engineering: learning from organisational experience. Total Quality Management 10(2): 173-86 Joss, R. 1994. What makes for successful TQM in the NHS? International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance 7(7) Joss, R. and Kogan, M. 1995. Advancing Quality: Total Quality Management in the NHS. Buckingham: Open University Press Juran, J. 1988. Juran on Planning for Quality. New York: Free Press Kanter, R. M. 1983. The Change Masters. London: George Allen and Unwin Kanter, R. M. 1989. When Giants Learn to Dance. New York: Simon and Shuster Kanter, R. M., Stein, B. and Jick, T. 1992. The Challenge of Organisational Change. London: Free Press Katzell, R. A. and Guzzo, R. A. 1983. Psychological approaches to productivity improvement. American Psychologist 38(4): 468-72 Kipping, R., Meredith, P., McLeod, H. and Ham, C. 2000. Booking Patients for Hospital Care: a Progress Report. Birmingham: Health Services Management Centre, University of Birmingham Kivimaki, M., Maki, E., Lindstrom, K., Alanko, A. and Seitsonen, S. 1997. Does the implementation of TQM change the well-being and work-related attitudes of health care personnel? Study of a prize-winning surgical clinic. Journal of Organisational Change Management 10(6): 456-72 96 R E F E R E N C E S Kotter, J. and Schlesinger, L. 1979. Choosing strategies for change. Harvard Business Review 57(2): 106-14 Lawler III, E., Mohrman, S. and Ledford, G. 1992. Employee Involvement and Total Quality Management. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Lehaney, B. and Hlupic, V. 1995. Simulation modelling for resource allocation and planning in the health sector. Journal of the Royal Society of Health 115(6): 382-5 Lehaney, B., Clarke, S. and Paul, R. 1999. A case of an intervention in an outpatients department. Journal of the Operational Research Society 50(9): 877-91 Leverment, Y., Ackers, P. and Preston, D. 1998. Professionals in the NHS – a case study of business process re-engineering. New Technology Work and Employment 13(2): 129-39 Lewin, K. 1946. Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues 2: 34-46 Lewin, K. 1947. Frontiers in group dynamics; channel of group life; social planning and action research. Human Relations 1: 143-53 Lewin, K. 1951. Field Theory in Social Science. New York: Harper Row Lin, B. and Clousing, J. 1995. Total quality management in health care – a survey of current practices. Total Quality Management 6(1): 69-78 Little, A. D. 1992. Survey of 500 Institutions. Boston: A. D. Little Locock, L. (forthcoming). Maps and Journeys: Redesign in the NHS. Birmingham: Health Services Management Centre, University of Birmingham McGill, M., Slocum, J. and Lei, D. 1993. Management practices in learning organisations. Organisational Dynamics, Autumn: 5-17 Macy, B., Bliese, P. and Norton, J. 1994. Organisational change and work innovation: a meta-analysis of 131 North American field experiments 1962-1990. In Research in Organisation Change and Development, ed. R. Woodman and W. Pasmore, vol. 7. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Martin, J. 1992. Cultures in Organisations: Three Perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press Miller, D., Coe, R., Morley, J. and Gettman, J. 1998. Total quality management and geriatric care. Australian Journal on Ageing 17(1): S60-66 Mintzberg, H. 1989. Mintzberg on Management: inside our strange world of organisations. Chicago: Free Press Motwani, J., Sower, V. E. and Brashier, L. W. 1996. Implementing TQM in the health care sector. Health Care Manage Rev 21(1): 73-82 Nadler, D. and Tushman, M. 1989. Organisational framebending. Academy of Management Executive 3: 194-202 National Patients’ Access Team. 2000. The Cancer Services Collaborative: Twelve Months On. Leicester: NPAT Nelson, E. C., Splaine, M. E., Batalden, P. B. and Plume, S. K. 1998. Annals of Internal Medicine, 128: 460-6 Nevis, E., DiBella, A. and Gould, J. 1995. Understanding organisations as learning systems. Sloan Management Review, Winter: 73-85 NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. 1999. Getting evidence into practice. Effective Health Care 5(1) NHS Executive London. 2000. Workforce and Development: Getting people on board. July Nwabueze, U. and Kanji, G K. 1997. The implementation of total quality management in the NHS: how to avoid failure. Total Quality Management 8(5): 265-80 Orlikowski, W. 1996. Improvising organisational transformation over time: a situated change perspective. Information Systems Research 7(1): 63-92 Packwood, T., Pollitt, C. and Roberts, S. 1998. Good medicine? A case study of business process re-engineering in a hospital. Policy and Politics 26(4): 401-15 Pascale, R. 1990. Managing on the Edge. London: Penguin 97