CHANGE MANAGEMENT

An ancient Chinese proverb states: "The greatest opportunities are created out of crisis. Crisis forces people to change and change often brings new opportunity. . . ." People typically resist change, however, and employees within any organization can significantly delay (or even stop) change from happening. Therefore, managing change is by far the most difficult part of business process reengineering and the least receptive to a mechanical approach.

Hard Stuff and Soft Stuff

Many organizations focus their change management efforts on identifying and implementing innovations, especially in terms of the introduction of new technology, mistakenly assuming "technological determinism"--that the effects of technology are independent of the organizational structure and processes in which it is embedded. As Tom Melone, president of Milliken & Company, has observed: "The hard stuff is easy, the soft stuff is hard, and the soft stuff is more important that the hard stuff." [1] Research has shown that, while investments in information technology (the "hard stuff") often are associated with higher productivity, complementary changes in organizational processes and practices (the "soft stuff") are at least as important--if not more so. [2]

In reality, each time anybody looks at change, they are standing at the edge, overlooking an abyss. Rarely are the dangers of taking the first important steps recognized, however.

There is another old proverb that states: "You cannot cross an abyss in two steps." The same wisdom applies to many organizational change efforts. All too often, managers proceed with change in a hit-or-miss fashion, implementing the most visible bits and pieces of a complex new system, unaware of the hidden but critical interconnections. Some types of organizational change are much riskier if undertaken incrementally or on a piecemeal basis, however. Existing tools for managing change often are inadequate when enterprise-wide change is contemplated. [3]

One of the reasons why change is so difficult is because managers bring their old perceptions with them. They cannot get rid of them; they simply charge ahead without proper planning or taking into consideration the fundamental of human behavior. Before they know it, too much time and money has been spent and the tangible results are not sufficient to justify continuing the project. When the project is terminated, they then wonder: "Where did the project go wrong?"

Organizational change sets into motion a profoundly complex set of actions and reactions which must first be understood and then managed. Management may not come close to understanding what they are dealing with during the transformational process. They may look at current situations with a mind conditioned by their past experiences. They often feel disoriented and confused. Rather than using this state of confusion as one in which to explore and discover, they may jump to incredibly simple-minded explanations. While this response may return them to a state of equilibrium, it does so without any new project insight.

Frequently management assumes that the models which have been developed for a given "reality" are generalized to others. For example, change facilitator may believe that what they learned working for the Department of Commerce is generalized to the U.S. Postal Service; or what was done at General Electric is transferable to General Motors; or what worked successfully in the private sector will be equally successful in a public university setting. Their assumptions usually are wrong. Perceptions on how the universe is or should be vary significantly based on the individual focal point of participants in different types of organizations.

Advances in information technology in response to rising competition and the need to "work smarter" have led to new modes of organizing work. Many of these new organizational approaches depart significantly from past practices instead of incrementally improving upon them. New organizational paradigms often eliminate the buffers of time and space as operations become more tightly coupled. The key question is how to simultaneously achieve significant improvements in quality, service, cost, and efficiency, while overcoming the inertia of "business as usual." Ignoring such interdependencies is becoming increasingly "risky business."

Business process reengineering efforts frequently run into serious difficulties--by some estimates, 70 percent of such projects fail to reach their intended goals. [4] And "near misses" may leave an organization worse off than if the change had never been attempted.

The difficulties that many organizations have encountered in implementing change stem, in large part, from an inadequate recognition of the critical linkages among technology, strategic goals, and day-to-day practices--the inability to coordinate the right technology with dozens of right strategic and structural issues all of the same time. Regardless of how beneficial a new technology may appear in isolation, the acid test is how it interacts with numerous other aspects of the organization. These interactions sometimes can made it impossible to successfully implement a new, complex system in a decentralized, uncoordinated (or under-coordinated) fashion. [5] Often, the problem is not that the proposed system is unworkable but that the transition proves more difficult than people had anticipated. [6]

Managers must take into account and coordinate the interactions among all the components of the organization. In the ideal situation, these interactions should create a cycle of positive feedback which amplifies even small steps in the right direction. Relatively few organizations have the luxury of re-designing their processes or structure from a "clean slate"--people, equipment, and prior operational knowledge cannot be so easily scrapped. Furthermore, organizational change almost inevitably becomes a learning process in which unanticipated obstacles and opportunities emerge. Recognizing this characteristics of change, movements like TQM have sought to institutionalized continuous improvement through incremental learning. However, when the costs of change are considered, it may not be clear whether the best course is to introduce radical change, incremental change, or no change at all, even if a potential organizational goal is precisely envisioned and represents an unambiguous improvement.

It is generally recognized that management must be involved with people--human or behavioral issues--and processes--non-human issues, such as new information technologies, accounting procedures, marketing methods, statistical analyses, and so on. However, organizations often implement new technology without modifying their human resource practices. Until recently, much of the emphasis in new management techniques has been on process issues (in spite of the recognition under TQM of the necessity of broad participation in improvement methods). There is increasing awareness, however, that much more emphasis must be placed on people issues.

Two reasons for this increasing emphasis on people issues are:

(1) The basis methods of TQM require more involvement of people; for instance, knowledge-creation activities require insights from people throughout the organization; and

(2) Human issues determine whether the rest of the methods (human or otherwise) get used effectively or rejected.

Thomas Powell has shown that successful result of new management systems most often are correlated with human behavior intangibles such as executive commitment, an open, trusting culture, and employee empowerment. [7] All of these factors are beneficial in their own right and enable quality procedures to have the desired effect.

Structural and Cultural Change

Any significant change is likely to be disruptive to the structure and culture of an organization. Enterprises that have attempted initiate process improvements while ignoring this syllogism have invariably failed.

Structural change management is concerned with the way functional units are organized to carry out their work responsibilities. It has to do with things or facilities. The focus includes policy and procedure, rules and regulations, management and staffing, facilities and equipment, and human resource practices. The job of top management must include the design of the organization's structure and the decisions about what needs to be done and how to do it. One size does not fit all, and it is not useful only to follow a recipe book. The design of the management system must be tailored to the particular organization and its environment, including making certain a set of management components has been chosen that fit well together.

Peter Drucker has offered a comprehensive description of what needs to be done as part of a modern management system--particularly with regards to planning, operations, and the management of structural change. [8] More recently, Drucker has begun to place increased emphasis on a systematic approach; that is, on recognizing the interactions among various parts of a system. [9] For instance, Drucker recommends:

It is important to be sensitive to the distinction between strong and weak interactions among the components of a system. In some sense, all of the components of a system interact. Depending on how the system is intended to change, however, interactions among some components may be strong, while interactions among other components may be weak. When interactions among components are strong, one component cannot be changed without taking into account the other components. For example, every company needs to consider its business strategy, product and market mix, processes, and organization. Typically, there are strong interactions between business strategy and product and market mix. However, the interactions between these two and processes or organization often are weaker. It often is adequate to treat components among which there are only weak interactions as if they are independent, and this work on them independently of other components.

Cultural change management is concerned with the ways in which people interact with each other, both in peer relationships and in superior/subordinate relationships. People and culture--the human systems of an enterprise--are what make or break any change initiative.

A desired organizational change must be motivated or enforced until the benefits of the change can be seen and the change becomes habitual. The basic idea is illustrated in the causal loop of behavior and culture. Culture may be defined as the ways in which we habitually think and do things. People behave in ways that are consistent with the culture of whatever society or community they are a part of. In turn, by continuing to behave in the same way, people perpetuate their culture. To change the culture, it is necessary to start to start by changing behavior. To accomplish this change in behavior, a management system must be designed and a strategy for phasing it in must be developed The design of a management system, like the design of any system, requires alternation between what needs to be done and how to do it.

Employees are often skeptical, since cultural change is based on a corporate perspective, not on individual needs, each of which is different. Fear and concern center around compensation, job security, sense of worth, perceptions by others, position, and social patterns. Employees may not be confident the organization will properly manage the transition. They may also be afraid about a lack of support while moving to a new job--if they have one at all.

Resistance to change can be overt or covert. Individuals may have the courage to voice their concerns about impending changes and such "speaking out" should be encouraged. Covert resistance is far more dangerous, since it is impossible to manage because it cannot be confronted. We have all been in meetings where people agree with a proposed change and even congratulate each other on the group's collective wisdom. Then they go back to their offices to tell their colleagues what a dumb idea they have just been wasting time discussing.

Reactions to change often is governed by perceived loss of control. However, people rarely are comfortable in expressing honest emotions in an organizational setting, so what they say may not be what they mean. An individual may object to a proposed change on the basis of a specific omission of some report or data element for which he or she may have primary responsibility. He or she may really be saying: "I knew how to play by the old rules, and I'm concerned that I may not be as successful under the new process." Even if the stated issue is accommodated, the real cause of the resistance may not be addressed.

Staff must first know what is happening, when it will happen, and how they will be impacted. Employees must believe they will get the training, knowledge, information, and authority to manage the performance that affects the products and services they deliver.

Projects must have strong, credible leadership and sufficient time and resources for high levels of communications, information gathering, participation, collaboration, education, training, and appropriate incentive and reward systems. Employees may also require support groups to help staff change, one person at a time. Employees also need time to adapt. Therefore, change activities should start from the assessment phase of the BPR and go through to implementation. Change management cannot be just an afterthought.

Organizing for Change Management

Senior management often envision change as being handled by broad-based initiatives through a series of clearly defined steps. This perception arise because they are usually steeped in the realities of business pressures and recognize the organizational changes that must occur. They think of change initiatives in broad terms: "We are redesigning our revenue accounting process." The vision and the objectives are so clear in their own minds, they assume staff will understand that change is necessary and will support them in every way. In so doing, they fail to recognized (or forget) a critical principle of change management: Organizations don't change; people do.

Employees seldom perceive change with the same clarity and determination as does senior management. Employees tend to think of change in terms of their specific responsibilities: "With the new accounting procedures, do I keep producing this spreadsheet or not?" To successfully implement and sustain change, initiatives must be presented (translated) to show implications for each individual who will be affected by the change. This is a key reason why change programs usually take longer than initially planned.

Marshall and Connor suggest that people may resist change even when they view it as a good idea, likening this response to change to the early stages of a marriage. [10] Initially, the introduction of change may be met with naive enthusiasm, based on insufficient data--this is the honeymoon period of a marriage. This period of "uninformed optimism" may be followed by "informed pessimism" when the real price of the change is discovered--the honeymoon is over. While the overall decision may have been a good one, there are significant costs that initially were unexpected or unknown. This is a critical point in the management of change. Individuals who were initially in support of the change may publicly reverse their position or, what may be more disruptive in the long run, may harbor undiscussed resentment and conflict.

If the organization can get past this turning point, then a stage of "hopeful realism" may be achieved--a view of the light at the end of the tunnel based on a more complete understanding of both the costs and the benefits of the change. This stage gives way to "informed optimism"--a sense that the change is achievable and that a great deal has already been accomplished.

An appropriate strategy may be to assign the responsibility for managing change to a separate team chartered to support all process improvement initiatives. The primary role of the change management team is to ensure that the improved processes will be successfully assimilated into the organization's structure and culture. This team must accomplish four general objectives:

One of the most difficult tasks is how to phase in the new management system. Many people inside the organization will try to create an all-or-nothing situation. For a variety of reasons, they will assume that the only two choices are: (1) making no changes or (2) making comprehensive changes from which there can be no deviance. Experts in various management system components may reinforce this assumption. And even if the experts do not encourage this attitude, people in the organization at all levels may adopt it.

A first step to phasing in a new management system is to boost commitment by finding a way to produce quick results that are representative of the benefits of the method, while also giving a flavor of the effort involved in implementing the method. Find sub-systems (or units) that are representative of the larger system or method. Another approach is to find a balance between the degree of challenge that is given to employees and their ability or energy to deal with the challenge. Employees quickly get turned off when they are directed to work on trivial tasks. However, the challenge should not be so aggressive that employees feel they have no chance of success, because this also will be a turn-off.

For example, an important but tractable problem should be selected as the initial focus to allow individuals to gain skill with the method before they attack crucial but less tractable problems. In particular, problems rooted in behavioral issues should be avoided until after staff members have gained some initial skill with the method. Similarly, the first applications may involve situations in which there is an assumption of cause and effect. In this case, it may be appropriate to use relations diagrams or causal loop diagrams to analyze the networks of cause and effects.

Reactions to Change

All changes are not the same. Nor are the consequences perceived in the same manner by all participants in the change process. Some people ignore minor changes; others are very upset by them. Big changes may not bother employees if these changes are "at the corporate level." People often use a progression of evaluations--questions that they ask to assess change. Ken Blanchard, author of Leadership and the One Minute Manager, believes people ask themselves and others the following questions about change, in the order specified:

This series of questions is somewhat analogous to Maslow's Needs Hierarchy, but adapted for process reengineering change. Maslow states that if a more basic level is not satisfied, a higher level will not be of importance to the organizational personnel. That is, if management cannot explain how the change will affect an employee (Question #2), then the employee will not help others change (Question #7). Management programs that ignore this theoretical construct usually fail.

People react to change in different ways and in different stages. Eileen Wolfe has identified three behavior patterns, or reactions, that are exhibited in a stressful change management situation: victims, survivors, and navigators. [11]

Victims Survivors Navigators
o Perceive themselves as independent of the facts o Believe they are at the mercy of circumstances they cannot change o Face the pain of change and take a proactive approach
o Feel threatened with hostile situations they can't handle o Believe they can survive the change if they simply "hold on" or become competitive with other employees o Create a vision of the desired future
o Panic and respond with "fight or flight." o Convince themselves that "grasping" and "clinging" are necessary for self protection o Gather pertinent information and assertively pursue the vision
o Become fatalistic o Respond with anticipation to what is coming and behave accordingly o Manage the stress of change well by cultivating a belief in their own ability to deal competently with the situation
o Oversimplify the world into good or bad, limiting their alternatives o Believe in being the cause and influences of events rather than the victim
o Are never happy and complain about everything
o Become pessimistic and cynical about management's intentions
o React by waiting for change to overtake and crush them

Overall, being a navigator is the most effective way of managing and handling change. As the label suggests, a navigator has greater control--has a hand on the tiller--and can help to steer the necessary changes in a direction that benefits both him/her as well as the overall organization.

Four stages of personal change manifest themselves in the reengineering change process: disbelieving, balking, testing and adapting. In the disbelieving stage, change is seen as a threat. The initial reaction to change may be shock: the change may appear to be so unreal that it cannot even be fathomed. People are afraid and react accordingly. With balking, letting go of the past is extremely difficult. Individuals angrily hold on to and defend the old way of doing things. "If I ignore it, may be it will go away." This phase may be characterized by frustration that often becomes real and is directed at other employees. When the testing stage is reached, peoplebegin to see the value of change. Effort is made to seek and test ways to feel more comfortable about accepting change. They want to examine the pros and cons. Individuals may seek to negotiate ways to minimize the impact of the change (including requests for deadline extensions, modifications to the change initiative, or even reassignment). Finally, at the adapting stage, people within the organization feel comfortable with the change and are ready to adapt and embrace the new routines.

Unfortunately, not all participants in the change process more successfully through these four stages. During the testing stage, for example, if efforts fail in the bargaining to minimize the impact of change, individuals may become so depressed at the realization that the change is real and permanent that they "want out." . The challenge for managers is to recognize the stage of personal change each employee and responding accordingly. A significant amount of individual attention and communication is required, since everyone will be in different stages at different times.

Organizations also go through stages of change: destabilizing, acknowledging and restabilizing. Perceptions and attitudes are destabilized when long held beliefs are challenged by new information. Transformation begins when employees collectively acknowledge the benefits of long held beliefs, but also recognize things could be changed to their advantage. Perceptions, attitudes, and behavior restabilizes when all or most employees believe the organizational benefits warrant the personal risk attached with reengineering change.

Matrix of Change

Brynjolfsson, Renshaw, and van Alstyne have developed a Matrix of Change to help identify critical interactions among processes. [12] This tool is designed to help managers deal with such issues as how quickly change should proceed, the order in which changes should take place, and whether the proposed systems are stable and coherent. It captures connections between practices and graphically displays both reinforcing and interfering organizational processes.

The approach involves the use of three matrices to represent: (1) the current organizational practices; (2) the desired practices; and (3) a transitional state that bridges these two. Stakeholder evaluations provide an opportunity for individuals within the organization to state the importance of these processes to their job activities. The construction of the matrices involves four steps:

(1) Identify Critical Processes: Managers should first list their existing goals, business practices, and ways of creating value for the organization's customers. Current practices are then broken into constituent processes, suggesting how they are accomplished. This phase of the analysis is repeated for new or target practices.

(2) Identify System Interactions: Practices/processes which are complementary (reinforcing) and competing (working at cross-purposes) are identified through the use of a grid which connects each process in an interference matrix. Plus (complementary) and minus (completing) signs are used at the junction of each grid to designate the relationship between processes. A plus sign does not indicate that an interaction is "good," only that it is reinforcing.

(3) Identify Transition Interactions: Existing and target practices are combined in a Transition Matrix to help determine the degree of difficulty in shifting from current to future practices.

(4) Stakeholders Survey: A determination is made as to where various stakeholders stand with respect to retaining current practices and implementing target practices.

The sign (plus or minus), strength, and density of interactions are important for determining the coherence and stability of the processes. A set of processes with numerous reinforcing relationships is coherent and, therefore, inherently stable, whereas one with numerous competing relationships is inherently unstable. These relationship are particularly critical in the transitional state. When faced with new practices that conflict with current operations, well-intentioned managers seeking to optimize their piece of the system will consciously or unconsciously undermine change by pushing the system back toward its initially stable state. From a local perspective, each manager's resistance appears sensible and even efficient, but from an overall organizational perspective, structural change becomes almost impossible to achieve.

Eliminating existing practices that clearly oppose other practices may be tempting, but also can be dangerous in that the remaining system become even more entrenched and difficult to change. Stable systems generally have few opposing practices. New practices easiest to implement are those that complement existing ways of doing business. However, caution must be exercised where new practices strengthen old habits in ways that make dismantling the old system even more difficult. "Linchpin" practices that support a large number of other practices must be handled with great care.

The density of interfering relationships in the transition matrix indicates how disruptive proposed changes will be. Increasing interference indicates a greater need for isolation. Sometimes a fledgling change project needs to be shielded from bad habits. As long as opposing practices remain, natural tendencies toward local optimization will push the system towards an initially stable state. In such situations, it may be better to introduce the desired change in a completely new location (a "greenfield") rather than in an existing or "brownfield" site. The notion of "greenfields" relates not only to location, but also attitudes. Radical change is "frame-breaking" in that it requires changes in mental and mechanical perspectives. For radical or frame-breaking change, an outside change agent may be essential to help people see processes differently. Managers may also need to be replaced, because they are too closely tied to former ways of doing business. Also, if a group is left particularly worse off by change--in influence, responsibilities, etc.--it often is best to address this issue early because members will tend to re-assert their former roles.

For purposes of planning the implementation of change, it is important to distinguish between the pace (gradual or rapid) and the nature (incremental or radical) of the change to be made [13] Radical change may best be spread over several episodic steps, especially if resources are locked in place and initial conditions resist change. A single step discontinuity may prove too disruptive, too expensive, or too confusing. On other occasions, change may have to be an all-or-nothing proposition, where halfway solutions may lead to wasted resources, organizational exposure, or even failure.

Three factors help to determine the appropriate pace of change: task interdependence, organizational receptiveness to change, and external pressure. Task interdependence concerns how modular and how serial the essential steps of change are, that is, the divisibility of organizational processes. Segmenting tasks into blocks reduces the scope of change and the coordination problem that must be managed. The pace of change within blocks may be fairly rapid, while the pace of change between blocks may be slow. The culture of an organization helps to indicate its receptiveness to change. The episodic approach to change is more viable if the organization is used to experimentation and risk taking. Episodic change, in turn, can promote experimentation and learning. Therefore, if change needs to migrate through several parts of an organization, late adopters can access the know-how and know-why of the early adopters without repeating their mistakes. Experimentation is unlikely, however, if the culture of the organization punishes failed experiments.

If external pressure is low, the organization has slack time for adaptation. However, if the organization faces a crisis, the option of episodic change may be precluded. With extreme external pressure, concern for survival and the absence of slack resources may force the pace to be rapid. If there is a history of opposition to change or a pattern of unsustained or regressive change, then transition times should be minimized.

Stakeholder evaluations open a window onto organizational receptiveness to change by making preferences and expectations explicit. If employees give an existing practice low marks, they are likely to support a change. Conversely, they will likely give an existing practice high marks if they do not support a change. High variance among stakeholder evaluations indicate different priorities and a fragmented strategic vision. The very act of asking workers for their values and then taking them seriously can have a positive effect on the change process by giving employees a sense of ownership and responsibility.

Successful Change Management

The steps of reengineering change are awareness, understanding, and finally, acceptance. These steps have a direct correlation to commitment. As each step along the way is well-handled, the level of change commitment generally increases. An effective change management process requires individual consideration, as the following seven steps demonstrate:

(1) Describe change and its reasons.

(2) Explain change impact on employees.

(3) Encourage questions and allow for expression of concerns.

(4) Respond to any questions and concerns.

(5) Restate or reemphasize alternative behaviors.

(6) Gain commitment to change.

(7) Confirm and get input on implementation plans and establish a follow-through process.

Open communication is the key to the successful management of change. The content of the message should be carefully planned for every phase of the BPR process; the messenger or agents of change should be thoroughly trained; the medium (or media) of communication should be determined from the outset. But most important is that the communication should be honest, flexible, and empathetic. The major issues regarding resistance to change should be addressed through open communications:

o The inevitability of resistance should be recognized and addressed honestly and consistently

o Acknowledge that resistance will be experienced differently based on positive or negative reactions to change

o Encourage overt expressions of concern to get problems out in the open.

o Recognize that people may not be comfortable expressing their true reasons for resistance and create an atmosphere that allows honest communication.

In the early stages of change, when enthusiasm is high, open communications helps minimize the impact of uninformed optimism by providing a true accounting of what the likely costs of the change will be. While this "full disclosure" may result in many change projects "never getting off the drawing board," that is a better outcome than having the project fail in implementation.

Open communications will go a long way to ensure that employees understand what the change entails and feel comfortable expressing honest resistance openly. This level of communication will also enable managers to understand whether employees are having a positive or negative reaction to change. Finally, open communications means that throughout the change process, management is consistently working with employees to help them understand the individual implications of the change initiatives so that resistance can be recognized, surfaced, managed, and gotten beyond.

Navigating through the seven steps requires commitment from the organization's top management. It requires a clear vision, shared throughout the organization, repeatedly communicated, and widely circulated. Successful change management maintains a connection with what was done well in the past. It focuses on the process, not the people and uses the past as stepping stones to guide future activities. Change management means caring, listening and responding to individual needs and concerns: it is people management. It also means helping people to use their insights, skills, and sense of values to move forward through team efforts and joint diagnosis. Most importantly, successful change management means openly valuing personal contributions to the process. It is accomplished by:

o Educating people about the change.

o Planning for change and managing it as a process.

o Assessing organizational readiness in terms of itsculture, the timing, and availability of adequate resources. ·

o Identifying and utilizing critical roles.

o Demonstrating commitment through active involvement and role modeling.

o Communicating in a clear, honest and open manner.

o Objectively assessing and preparing for implementation barriers.

o Limiting crises and turning them into opportunities.

Conclusion

"Effective human change management is a long journey and in many respects we have just begun. Each change we face presents new circumstances, challenges and opportunities. As change leaders, we have not only the responsibility, but the privilege of encouraging and guiding others through change journeys. As we learn to initiate and embrace change, we will do much to forward our organizations and the people within them." [14]

Endnotes

[1] Cited in Straford Sherman, "How Tomorrow's Best Leaders Are Learning Their Stuff," Fortune (November 27, 1995), pp. 90-102.

[2] Erik Brynjolfsson and Lorin Hitt, "Paradox Lost? Firm-level Evidence of the Returns to Information Systems Spending," Management Science (1996).

[3] Thomas Davenport and Donna Stoddard, "Reengineering: Business Change of Mythic Proportions?" MIS Quarterly, Vol. 18 (1994), pp. 121-127.

[4] Michael Hammer and James Champy, Reengineering the Corporation (New York: HarperColliuns, 1993).

[5] Paul Milgrom and John Roberts, "The Economics of Modern Manufacturing: Technology, Strategy, and Organization," American Economic Review, Vol. 80, No. 3 (1990), pp. 511-528.

[6] James Champy, Reengineering Management (New York: Harper Business, 1995).

[7] Thomas C. Powell, "When Lemmings Learn to Sail: Turning TQM to Competitive Advantage, in 1995 Handbook of Business Strategy, B. Voss and D. Willey, editors (Faulkner & Gray), pp. 42-54.

[8] Peter Drucker, Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, and Practices

[9] Peter Drucker, "The Information Executives Truly Need," Harvard Business Review (January-February 1995), pp. 54-62.

[10] Jay Marshall and Daryl R. Conner, "Another Reason Why Companies Resist Change, " Strategy & Business Briefs (Booz - Allen & Hamilton, 1999)

[11] Eileen Wolfe, "Human Management: The Achilles Heel of Business Process Reengineering," Enterprise Reengineering (September, 1995).

[12] Erik Brynjolfsson, Amy Austin Renshaw, and Marshall van Alstyne, The Matrix of Change: A Tool for Business Process Reengineering (Cambridge, Mass: MIT Sloan School of Management, 1997).

[13] Michael Gallivan, J. Debrah Hofman, and Wanda Orlikowski, Implementing Radical Change: Gradual versus Rapid Pace, (Vancouver, B.C.: Association of Computing Machinery, 1994).

[14] Wolfe, op cit.