T o c hange i s t o parc i pat e, t o parc i pat e i s t o c hange
A st udy i nt o t he r el aonshi p bet ween user parci paon and change pr oj ect success.
I l se El i sabet h van der Hoek
Title To change is to participate, to participate is to change.
Subtitle
A study into the relationship between user participation
and change project success.
Author
Ilse Elisabeth van der Hoek Gratamastraat 42
9714 HT Groningen
M: +316 23 10 32 84
E: ilsevanderhoek@hotmail.com
S: 1669575
University
University of Groningen,
Faculty of Economics and Business Field of Change Management
Supervisor University
Dr. C. Reezigt
Drs. H.P. van Peet University of Groningen
Faculty of Economics and Business
Supervisor AMI Consultancy
Dhr. M. Schilder Dhr. P. Storm
Version
Final
Date
June 2013
In this section I would like to thank a few people. In the autumn of 2012 I had a meeting with Cees Reezigt. He told me about the opportunity to do research into success factors of project
management and got me in touch with Matthijs Schilder and Peter Storm of AMI Consultancy from The Hague.
After a meeting in The Hague I started writing my thesis. Or actually, I started searching for literature, since there are so many interesting readings about change management. The focus of my thesis is on the relationship between user participation and change project success. It was fascinating to read so many interesting articles about this subject and to build on what has to be the closing of my study, the Master thesis.
I would like to thank Cees Reezigt, Matthijs Schilder and Peter Storm for their supervision and professional support. Furthermore I would like to thank Klaas Damsma for his precious
encouragement and contribution to my thesis. And special thanks to my sister Irene van der Hoek for her constructive help with the SPSS analyses. Finally I really need to thank my colleagues of
theFactor.e, Inez Alkema and Joyce Zuidema for being so flexible and supportive and giving me the ability to combine my study next to my work.
“Every individual experiences change in a unique way. For some it implies a source of joy and benefits, whereas for others it is a source of suffering, stress and disadvantages. What bonds these people is that they want to know where things are going, why, and what the implications are on the organization, their part of the operation and especially on them personally”
Bouckenooghe (2010) and Cawsey (et al, 2009).
This research examines the relationship between user participation and change project success by the use of the four dimensions of project success of Shenhar and Levy (1997). It is quite remarkable in the sense that it examines the direct relation between user participation and change project success, without mediating variables. Bouma (2009) states that many researchers indicate that participation is positively related to organizational change success, but always by the use of mediating entities.
It was expected that user participation had a negative relationship with the dimension ‘project efficiency’ and positive relationships with the dimensions ‘impact on the customer’, ‘overall business success’ and ‘preparation for the future’.
To test the proposed hypotheses a quantitative research was conducted. 128 users answered
questions about their level of participation in a change project and were questioned to assess change project success, based on the four dimensions of project success.
The results of this research were in line with three of the four proposed hypotheses. Remarkably, there was found no negative relationship between user participation and project efficiency, although this was expected. The relationship found was significant, but positive. Which contains that user participation has a positive relationship with project efficiency.
Concluding it can be stated that in this research, from the perspective of users themselves, user participation has significant positive relationships with change project success, reflected by positive relationships between user participation and the four dimensions of project success.
1 INTRODUCTION ... 5
2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ... 7
2.1 User Participation ... 7
2.1.1 Properties of participation ... 8
2.1.2 User participation and readiness for organizational change ... 10
2.1.3 Importance of user participation ... 11
2.2 Change project success ... 13
2.2.1 Change projects ... 13
2.2.2 Defining and measuring change project success ... 13
2.2.3 Dimensions of project success ... 15
2.3 Relation between user participation and the different dimensions of project success ... 16
2.3.1 Dimension 1 -‐ Project efficiency ... 16
2.3.2 Dimension 2 – Impact on the customer ... 16
2.3.3 Dimension 3 – Overall business success ... 17
2.3.4 Dimension 4 – Preparing for the future ... 18
3 METHOD ... 20
3.1 Data collection ... 20
3.2 Measures ... 21
3.2.1 User participation ... 21
3.2.2 Change project success ... 21
3.2.3 Control variables ... 22
3.3 Validity and reliability ... 22
3.4 Data analysis ... 23
4 RESULTS ... 24
4.1 Descriptives ... 24
4.2 Correlations ... 24
4.3 Regression analyses ... 26
4.3.1 User participation -‐ Project efficiency: ... 26
4.3.2 User participation -‐ Impact on the customer: ... 26
4.3.3 User participation -‐ Overall business success: ... 26
4.3.4 User participation -‐ Preparation for the future: ... 27
4.3.5 User participation -‐ Four dimensions of project success: ... 27
5 DISCUSSION ... 28
5.2 Limitations ... 32
5.3 Theoretical implications and further research directions ... 33
5.4 Practical implications ... 33
6 Literature ... 34
7 APPENDICES ... 38
7.1 Questionairre ... 38
7.2 Factor analyses ... 46
7.2.1 Factor analysis user participation ... 46
7.2.2 First factor analysis change project success ... 46
7.2.3 Four component factor analysis change project success ... 47
7.3 Descriptives ... 48
7.4 Spearman’s rho Correlation ... 49
7.5 Regression analyses ... 50
7.5.1 User participation -‐ Project efficiency ... 50
7.5.2 User participation -‐ Impact on the customer ... 50
7.5.3 User participation -‐ Overall business success ... 51
7.5.4 User participation -‐ Preparation for the future ... 52
7.5.5 User participation -‐ Four dimensions of project success together ... 53
1 INTRODUCTION
“Het officiële koningslied” which was especially composed for the inauguration of the new king of the Netherlands, is a great illustration of how a project with a democratic/ participative character, can turn out not as expected. Thousands of citizens expressed their dissatisfaction at social media, from bad to worse. And yes, the original song will be remembered, but not as intended. The national committee of inauguration stimulated citizens to send in a text and the best texts were incorporated in the official song. “A good initiative, but that was basically it” (De Ruijter, Frankwatching, 2013).
Change the official song into “change project” and the Dutch citizens into “the target group of the change” and the comparison with a conventional change project has been made. De Ruijter
(Frankwatching, 2013) states that participation practices should not be treated light-‐hearted, but as a serious practice that demands for active participation of people, peers, colleagues and customers. De Ruijter (Frankwatching, 2013) ends its article with the ironic suggestion that involvement of citizens wasn’t the problem in composing the original song, since social media forums exploded when the original song was revealed.
Unfortunately it seems like many other change initiatives also turn out to be less successful as expected. Burnes (2009) states that although there is more knowledge and insights on how to manage change than ever before, the failure rates are very high. Beer and Nohria (2000), for example, state that this rate is about two-‐third. Westerveld (2003) states that managing change is like managing expectations. Since many stakeholders are involved, in our illustration composers, co-‐
creators and the ‘users’, change managers have to manage many different perceptions. This is where difficulties arise, since it is almost impossible to keep the many stakeholders satisfied (Cawsey et al, 2011). As Bennenbroek Gravenhorst (2003) states: “change is so difficult, it is a miracle if it occurs successfully”.
Since organizations have to work more efficient and effective than ever before and need to change constantly (McKinsey and Company, 2008), project management is used to streamline these change initiatives. There is wide divergence about what constitutes change project success (Prabhakar, 2008). This is the result of the subjectivity that comes into place. In this research the four dimensions of project success (Shenhar and Levy, 1997) are used to measure change project success. Despite the divergence of opinions on what constitutes change project success, these authors have undertaken an attempt to assess the construct. The four dimensions comprise project success its traditional and dominating aspects such as time and cost (project efficiency) sales, profit, market share (business success), but do also cover aspects such as customer satisfaction (impact on the customer) and
project efficiency is in most cases irrelevant after one year and that attention will shift to latter dimensions as time goes by.
Likewise, Savelsbergh (et al, 2010) are critical on the dominance of the traditional aspects of project success and advocate for other estimations of project success. They use a metaphor to demonstrate that project success is not only determined by these traditional and dominating aspects. “When asking a friend how his holiday was, success does not depend on whether he stuck to the budget, did what he was planned to do and whether he was back exactly on the proposed time. Having a good time, satisfaction and pleasurable memories is what will be remembered after a few years”. And so is, with change projects.
This study explores the relationship between user participation and change project success. This research is written from a user perspective. It examines the relationship between user participation and change project success from the point of view of people “that find themselves on the receiving end of the change project” (Cawsey et al, 2009). In many studies user participation is seen as a condition and sometimes even a predictor for change project success. Bennebroek Gravenhorst (2003) states that paradoxically, users fulfill a rather passive role in many change projects, whilst their reaction determines change project success. It is their behavior that determines whether a change will be normalized or not. Likewise, Armenakis (et al, 1993) view participation as a powerful strategy to enhance readiness for change, which is often seen as a predictor of change project success.
This research starts with a literature review about user participation and change project success, based on the four dimensions of project success of Shenhar and Levy (1997). The relationship between user participation and change project success will be described. The first chapter ends with hypotheses and a conceptual model, which illustrates the proposed hypotheses. In the next chapter, the research method will be described. The way data was collected and the measures of this research will be described and finally the results of the validity and reliability tests are described. In the fourth chapter the results of the acquired data will be presented. Descriptives and correlations are
described and the proposed hypotheses are tested using regression analyses. The last chapter comprises a final discussion, consisting of limitations, theoretical and practical implications.
2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
This chapter provides theoretical conceptions on user participation and addresses the properties and several theoretical perspectives on user participation. Second, different definitions of change project success are given and the chapter closes with connecting user participation to change project
success.
2.1 User Participation
In this section user participation is defined and theoretical perspectives are reviewed. Coch and French (1948) were probably the first researchers discussing participation in organizational decision making. The authors assessed factors of resistance from employees of the Harwood Manufacturing Company. They studied the relationship between participating in decision-‐making and the
effectiveness of sorting pajamas. In conclusion, they ascertained that employees, having the opportunity to participate in decision-‐making, sorted the pajamas more effectively (Cozijnsen and Vrakking, 2003).
Involvement has a crucial role in OD its philosophy (French and Bell, 1996).
In their book
“Organization Development and Change”, Cummings and Worley (2005) argue for involvement in organizational change projects in order to establish a successful change. Cooper (2002) states that whilst in the past many terms such as involvement, power sharing, shared decision making and empowerment were interchangeably used to stipulate participation, nowadays participation is the term to define participation in organizational decision making. This focus of this field of study is on user participation. Users in this study are defined as the people that make use of project its output and as those who are affected by the change.
Barki and Hartwick (1989) were the first authors whom distinct between user participation and user involvement, hence the behavioral and psychological approach. Till then, user participation and user involvement frequently were meant to stipulate the same. The authors claim that user involvement refers to “the subjective physiological state of the individual and the importance one attaches to a given event”, whilst user participation refers to “the behaviors and activities that the target users or their representatives perform during the process”.
It is this definition of user participation of Barki and Hartwick (1989) that still dominates user participation literature (Kirsch and Beath, 1996). He and King (2008) refer to user participation as:
“A management practice that encourages users who are to execute the decisions, or who are affected by the decisions, to participate in the decision making process”.
For this study the definition of He and King (2008) is applied to define user participation because this definition reflects best what is meant by user participation in this research. In the next section different properties of participation are elaborated.
2.1.1 Properties of participation
In this section the five properties of participation are reviewed. In their study into participation, Dachler and Wilpert (1978) found five properties that characterize participation:
1. Formal-‐informal 2. Direct-‐indirect
3. Access to participation
4. Content, complexity and importance of decisions 5. Social range of participation
Formal – informal
The degree of formality or informality of participation is deeply rooted in an organization its
underlying norms and values and dependent on an organization its context. For example the United States, England and Scandinavian countries have a low degree of formality, whilst Germany and the Netherlands legalized their participation structures. The one is not necessarily better than the other.
Direct -‐ indirect
The nature of a political democracy often determines whether an organization uses direct or indirect forms of participation. Direct participation is often seen as an ideal, but some reservations are made.
Characteristics such as the degree to which participants have access, the range and importance of the issues and the range of people to be included determine whether participation is successful or not.
Access to participation
Dachler and Wilpert (1978) developed a continuum of behaviors, ranging from 1 to 6, to clarify the amount of influence one has in decision-‐making. The six behaviors are ranging from non-‐involvement to involvement:
1. No information is given about a decision to be taken
2. Information about the decision to be taken is given in advance 3. One can give his/ her opinion about the decision to be made 4. Opinions are taken into account in the decision making process
5. One can use a veto in order to block a decision or to give a “go”
6. The decisions are made by the ones who are involved.
Within behavior 1 to 4, management of the organization is in control. The fifth behavior reflects a situation in which people can influence decision-‐making. Whilst the sixth behavior, views people as having equal access to decision making and having equal potential to influence decision making.
Content, complexity and importance of decisions
Refers to the range and complexity of decisions and the relative importance to the participants.
Content, complexity and importance may vary.
Social range of participation
Dachler and Wilpert (1978) distinguish between a limited social range and a broad social range of participation. Within a limited social range of participation, people from the same subunit are allowed to influence decision making, whilst within a broad social range of participation, people from different subunits are allowed to exert their influence. Engaging people from different subunits into decision making is likely to lead to different outcomes, since different psychological processes play a role.
According to Strauss (1998) the properties of Dachler and Wilpert (1978) are very useful in defining the nature of participation. Similarly, Barki and Hartwick (1994) state that the properties of Dachler and Wilpert (1978) together form the total concept of participation.
2.1.2 User participation and readiness for organizational change
Special interest in organizational change literature is given to readiness for organizational change (Bouckenooghe, 2009). Armenakis (et al, 2007) define readiness for organizational change as individual’s attitudes towards the content of change (what is changed), the process of change (how the change is being implemented) and the context of change (circumstances under which change occurs).
Armenakis (et al, 1993) describe different powerful strategies to enhance readiness for
organizational change. The different influence strategies to enhance readiness for organizational change include active participation, persuasive communication and management of external
information. In situations where readiness and urgency are low, and in situations where readiness is high, but urgency is still low, active participation is advocated. By actively involving individuals in these settings, information is gained by individuals themselves.
According to Armenakis (et al, 1993), individuals attach greater importance to information discovered by themselves than to information imposed by others, which in turn will enhance individuals’ readiness for organizational change.
The three forms of active participation in order to increase one’s readiness for organizational change, of Armenakis (et al, 1993) include:
• Vicarious learning: observing and learning from others to increase individuals’
confidence and enhance adoption of the organizational change.
• Enactive mastery: building self-‐efficacy trough involvement of individuals in small/
incremental changes before introducing large-‐scale change.
• Participative Decision Making: direct involvement in organizational decision-‐making.
In the next section different perspectives on the importance of user participation are elaborated.
2.1.3 Importance of user participation
Despite their different perspectives, many authors collectively recognize the importance of
participation (Bouma, 2009). As Boddy and Buchanan (1992) state: “ask any management group to list preconditions of effective change and terms as involvement, participation and ownership inevitable emerge”. In the early 60’s, researchers started to study the influence of user participation on Information Systems implementation. These authors found positive effects of user participation on system quality, user satisfaction and system use (Barki and Hartwick, 1994).
In numerous change management readings, resistance and acceptance are seen as two opposites of a continuum (Lapointe and Rivard, 2005). Whereas acceptance is seen as ideality. According to Bedeian and Zammuto (1991) participation is the most effective way to encounter resistance to change, which is an important barrier against successful organizational change. By involving the ones who resist, support will be created. Similarly, Oreg (et al, 2011) in a 60-‐year review of recipients reactions towards organizational change, state that participation during change projects decreases feelings of stress and resistance and leads to higher acceptance and support of the change project.
Also Dunphy and Stace (1988) advocate for involvement/ participation of the ones effected by the change in order to build consensus. They recognize the negative effects of coercive/ top-‐down decision making (mostly by charismatic leaders) on the ones effected by the change.
Bouma (2009) lays a relation between participation and ownership in stating that participation increases the understanding of the necessity for change, which creates ownership. Ownership will increase commitment and increase one’s intent to make the change project successful (Bouma and Emans, 2005).
McKeen and Guimareas (1997) sum up different benefits of user participation. The different benefits are illustrated in
Exhibit 1
.
Exhibit 1 Benefits of user participation (McKeen and Guimareas, 1997)
Despite the importance of user participation, some authors state that effects are overestimated (Bouma, 2009; He and King, 2008). Bouma (2009) states that many researchers indicate that participation is positively related to organizational change success, but always by the use of mediating entities. Those mediating entities cause the difference between positive and negative outcomes in organizational change success (Bouma, 2009).
Likewise, He and King (2008) stress that the effects of user participation are moderated by certain variables, such as; organization size, user attitudes, task interdependency and task complexity, the different types of participants, the climate for participation, leadership styles and top management support.
2.2 Change project success
In this section a definition of change projects and change project success are given. Furthermore, the different dimensions of project success relevant for this study will be elaborated.
2.2.1 Change projects
In order to specify organizational change projects, Metselaar (1997) defined:
“The planned modification of an organization its structure or culture, initiated by organization its top management, aimed at improving organization its functioning.”
In this research the definition of Metselaar (1997) is applied to define change projects.
In their book about interpersonal skills for project managers, Boddy and Buchanan (1992) present five characteristics of a change project. The first two are novelty and unpredictability. The third and fourth characteristic is about interrelatedness. The fact that organizational changes often effect other domains and the fact that those effects lead to actual/ other changes. The last characteristic concerns the fact that project managers have to cope with many different stakeholders.
Additionally, Boddy and Buchanan (1992) make a distinction in the focus of the organizational change. Whilst some will focus on structural matters, other interventions will focus on the culture/
human element.
2.2.2 Defining and measuring change project success
What constitutes change project success? According to Cawsey et al (2009) little attention is given to measurement of change projects. “Change is complex, requires complex measurement tools, is hard to measure in numbers and end-‐points are unclear, due to the evolutionary nature of change”.
Similarly, Prabhakar (2008) states that there is a “wide divergence” of opinions on what constitutes change project success. What might be successful for the one individual may be unsatisfactory for the other. Turner (2009) states that project success is perceived differently by different stakeholders.
To make it even more complex, Turner and Zolin (2012) stress that sometimes projects are seen as failures and later on turned out to be a great success. The opposite may also be possible.
Change project success can be seen from an objective or a more subjective point of view and from a combination of both perspectives. Wu and Lee (2001) belong to the group of authors that handle an objective perspective and judge change project effectiveness based on hard and tangible results.
Correspondingly, De Wit (1988) suggests project success lays in “the golden triangle” which includes time, cost and quality of a project. Other authors combine objectivity and subjectivity in assessing change project success. For instance, Cummings and Worley (2005), assess change project efficiency
based on financial gains, quality of products and services, productivity, continuous improvement and quality of work life. Although they add that the focus should be on financial gains in order to sustain.
When defining change project success, it is important to distinguish change projects from traditional projects. According to Boddy and Buchanan (1992) managing change projects is a greater challenge than managing traditional projects due to its pace and complexity. Change projects are evolutionary, characterized by trial and error, experimentation and learning, rather than a radical long-‐term fixed plan (Boddy and Buchanan, 1992). Whereas success of traditional projects relies on dimensions such as accomplishment of budget/time and planning/control, success of change projects relies on other dimensions (Boddy and Buchanan, 1992). Change project outcomes are not a product of rationality, but are shaped by interests of individuals and groups and are the result of bureaucracy and
manipulation. Whether change project outcomes are perceived successful depends on interests of several individuals and groups (Whipp, et al 1989). Traditional project management measures lack the political and cultural nature of change projects (Pettigrew, 1985).
In this study, the four dimensions of Shenhar and Levy (1997) are used to measure change project success. It should be noticed that these dimensions represent “traditional” project success measures, which are not especially designed for measuring change projects. As already stated in the
introduction of this study, these dimensions cover the dominant/ traditional measures of project success, such as “project efficiency” and “business success”, but also dimensions that might be especially relevant for this study, especially “impact on the customer” and “preparation for the future”.
In line with the argumentation of Boddy and Buchanan (1992) and Whipp (1989), Shenhar and Levy (1997) state that satisfaction of end-‐users is influential in measuring change project success. In this category, Baker (et al, 1988) made an interesting remark. They suggest project success does not exist, what remains is “perceived success of a project”. And also Turner and Zolin (2012) state that project success “has little to do” with aspects such as time, cost and quality but with project its outcomes, impact and achievement of desired business objectives.
2.2.3 Dimensions of project success
Shenhar and Levy (1997) identified four dimensions that measure project success.
1. Project efficiency 2. Impact on the customer 3. Business success
4. Preparation for the future
1: Project efficiency: this dimension basically measures whether the project has been finished on time and within the specified budget. This dimension manages the efficiency of the project, but does not necessarily reflect the long-‐term benefits of the organization. However, since organizations more and more experience time pressures, due to increased competition and shorter time-‐to-‐market, project efficiency becomes of greater importance. Project efficiency thus measures project
management efficiency, reflected by aspects of the golden triangle (De Wit, 1988), such as time, cost and quality.
2: Impact on the Customers: this dimension measures the effect on the customers of the project. It measures whether the project meets performance measures and set requirements, but most important, it measures “customer satisfaction”. Reflected by actual “use” and intended “use”.
3: Business Success: the fourth dimension measures the influence of the project on overall organizational performance, for instance in terms of quality, market share and profit.
4: Preparation for the Future: the last dimension measures a project its long term effects. Is the organization after project completion able to adapt to new market challenges? Or is the organization even able to “create the future of the industry”.
Turner and Zolin (2012) and Shenhar and Levy (1997) acknowledge that the four dimensions are stated consciously in this order, because judgment of the criteria is time related. Efficiency of the project can be judged short after the project has been finished, the impact on the team and customers can be judged after a few months. The impact on business success and the degree to which the organization is prepared for the future can only be judged after a few months/ maybe even years. Turner and Zolin (2012) add that the importance attached by managers to the different dimensions may vary, depending on their context.
2.3 Relation between user participation and the different dimensions of project success
As stated in the previous section, difficulties arise when measuring change project success due to its ambiguous and complex nature. In this section the relationship between user participation and the different dimensions of project success (Shenhar and Levy, 1997) is elaborated. Furthermore hypotheses are formulated at the end of each section.
2.3.1 Dimension 1 -‐ Project efficiency
The project efficiency dimension refers to whether a project has been finished within time and the specified budget (Shenhar and Levy, 1997). Boddy and Macbeth (2000) state that successful projects do not always consult users and debate widely. They recognize that this viewpoint is contrary with existing wisdom on change management, but state that some situations need managers that drive change by the use of power and politics, instead of participation practices in order to prevent delays.
Likewise, Beer and Nohria (2000) stress that it may be likely for participation to make change projects more successful, but that it slows down the actual change process/ project.
Similarly, Zajac and Bruhn (1999) state that it is wrong to presume organizational change projects have the length to involve opinions of all employees, since many change projects have to be executed in a short span of time. This is corroborated by Shenhar and Levy (1997) in stating that managing a project within time and specified budget is important because of increased competition, a shorter product life cycle and a shorter time-‐to-‐market.
Participation is time-‐consuming and therefore a negative relationship between user participation and the efficiency of the change project is expected.
Hypothesis 1: There exists a negative relationship between user participation and the efficiency of the change project.
2.3.2 Dimension 2 – Impact on the customer
The second dimension is probably the most important dimension in measuring project success within this study. This dimension measures the effects of the project on the customers/ end users and measures whether the project meets performance measures and set requirements, but most important, it measures “customer satisfaction”. Correspondingly, Xue (2009) states change project success cannot only be measured nowadays by completing the work to time, costs and quality, but states that the “desired outcome” expected by end users defines change project success. This
suggestion is emphasized by Shenhar and Levy (1997). They state that all in all, the only thing that matters is whether the users affected by the project are satisfied or not.
In demonstrating benefits of user participation, He and King (2008) classified attitudinal/ behavioral effects on the individuals involved. Attitudinal/ behavioral benefits are reflected by user satisfaction, use intention and actual use. User satisfaction is probably most used. It refers to the degree to which project deliverables meet user its needs, requirements and expectations. Use intention refers to the strength of users intentions and predicts actual use. Actual use is measured by the amount or frequency a user operates project deliverables. According to He and King (2008) user participation contributes to favorable attitudinal and behavioral effects.
Similarly, Grunig (1997) proposes that a higher degree of participation of users within a change project is beneficial for trust, commitment and satisfaction.
Hypothesis 2: There exists a positive relationship between user participation and the impact the change project has on the customers
2.3.3 Dimension 3 – Overall business success
The third dimension measures the direct impact on the overall organization. Did the project contribute to higher revenues, higher productivity and higher market share? And is quality of products and services improved after project completion? (Shenhar and Levy, 1997).
He and King (2008) mention productivity benefits of user participation. Productivity benefits are reflected by improved performance and efficiency, such as an increase in individual performance (job performance, task productivity), an increase in team performance (meeting budget, schedule and other requirements) and an increase in organizational performance (overall performance,
competitive advantage).
Vroom and Jago (1988) distinguish between different forms and amounts of participation and distinguish between situations where recipients are involved, but without decision making mandate and actual participation, where recipients do have decision making mandate. According to them, quality of decisions is improved by use of participation where recipients have decision-‐making mandate. Similarly, McKeen and Guimareas (1997) state that user participation stimulates bargaining and sometimes even conflict. These authors state that bargaining and conflict in the short term may encounter delays and tensions, but in the long run this bargaining and conflict improves quality of the solutions, sometimes even solutions that constitute a new competitive advantage for the
Hypothesis 3: There exists a positive relationship between user participation and the overall business success.
2.3.4 Dimension 4 – Preparing for the future
Organization its preparation for the future defines the manner into which the organization is
prepared for the future after the change project finished. This dimension represents the success of a change project over a longer period of time (Shenhar and Levy, 1997).
No proof was found on the relationship between user participation and an organization its preparation for the future. From the next we might assume that a positive relation exists.
Boddy and Buchanan (1992) state that one of the characteristics of a change project is its
interrelatedness; the fact that organizational changes often effect other domains and the fact that those effects lead to actual/ other change initiatives. By introducing these new organizational
changes, organizations evolve and prepare themselves for future opportunities, such as entering new markets, ideas, innovations and products (Shenhar and Levy, 1997). Sometimes an organizational change project might even mean a breakthrough innovation, which lays a foundation for the organization’s future.
Hypothesis 4: There exists a positive relationship between user participation and the organization’s preparation for the future.
The conceptual model reflects the role of user participation in relation to the different dimensions of change project success, as discussed in this theoretical framework. The conceptual model is
illustrated in
Exhibit 2
.
Change Project Success
Project Efficiency
Impact on the Customers
Business Success
Preparation for the Future User Participation
-‐
+ + +
Exhibit 2: Conceptual model
3 METHOD
In this section the modus operandi for data collection is elaborated. Furthermore the measures are addressed. Validity and reliability of this study are discussed and in the last section the method for data analysis is described.
3.1 Data collection
For examining the relationship between user participation (independent variable) and change project success (dependent variable) a quantitative research was conducted. Respondents had to answer questions about their level of participation in the change project and were questioned to assess change project success, based on the four dimensions (Shenhar and Levy, 1997).
Items, composed by several authors in the field, were selected and presented in an online
questionnaire. The online questionnaire (appendix 1) consisted of several multiple-‐choice questions.
Prior to executing the online questionnaire, a pilot test was performed with five respondents. The pilot test resulted in modifications of several items and finally some items were removed. A number of questions were converted to past tense since change project success can only be measured after the project has been completed.
Items that were negatively formulated were transformed into positively formulated items since the respondents in the pilot test experienced difficulties with these questions. Finally, questions that seemed to measure exactly the same were removed and the sequence of questions was slightly changed to make the questionnaire more fluently.
Respondents were invited to participate in this research using the researcher its network. Since this research has its focus on user participation, people that undergo the change project in the role of user, were requested to cooperate. The researcher approached people of several organizations.
Examples of a few change projects were mentioned by the researcher, because she was familiar with the organizations. The respondents received an email with a link to a website.
At the website, the respondents could read an explanation about the research and found a link that redirected them to the actual questionnaire. It was made clear in the explanatory text at the website and in the online questionnaire itself that only people that undergo the change project could
participate, not project leaders or initiators of the change project. Furthermore the aim of the study was set out, and it was explained that participation was anonymous.
Hundred and fourty-‐six respondents filled in the online questionnaire in a time span of 3 weeks. Only completed questionnaires were used to draw conclusions. The number of entirely filled in
questionnaires is 128. The questionnaire did not allow to fill in the next question without filling in the current one. Answering on each question was compulsory.
3.2 Measures
All the items used in the online questionnaire are stated in appendix 1. The online questionnaire contains 27 items. The respondents had to answer the questions on a 7-‐point Likert scale, ranging from 1. Entirely disagree, 2. Largely disagree, 3. Somewhat disagree, 4. Neutral, 5. Somewhat agree, 6. Largely agree, 7. Entirely agree.
3.2.1 User participation
Two sets of items have been used to measure user participation. The first set of items is based on the COCQ questionnaire of Bennebroek Gravenhorst (et al, 2005). This questionnaire measures how different forms of communication of change are evaluated and how these forms are related to uncertainty, readiness for change and support. Eight questions in the original COCQ questionnaire were used to measure participation. In this research, five items of Bennebroek Gravenhorst (et al, 2005) were selected to measure user participation. The items were selected since they are representative for this research and since they are appropriate for measuring user participation, where many other items specifically measure employee participation. Reliability of the first set of items has been proven with a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0,77.
The second set of items that measures user participation is based on Bouckenooghe (et al, 2009).
This set of items is chosen because these researchers developed a questionnaire of 42 items addressing the wide spectrum of change: climate of change, process of change and readiness for change. Participation is classified within the category “process of change” and has proven reliability with a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0,78. Three items of Bouckenooghe (et al, 2009) were selected to
measure user participation in this study. Reliability of the second set of items have been proved with a Cronbach ‘s Alpha of 0,78.
Together, these 5 items of Bennebroek Gravenhorst (et al, 2005) and 3 items of Bouckenooghe (et al ,2009) form the part of the online questionnaire that measures user participation.
3.2.2 Change project success
The measurement of change project success is based on Shenhar and Levy (1997). As described in the literature section, these authors developed a questionnaire that measures four dimensions of project success which are project efficiency, impact on the customer, overall business success and preparation for the future. The original questionnaire consists of 21 items. In this research, 16 items were selected after the pilot test.
3.2.3 Control variables
Gender, education and age were selected as control variables. In section 4.1 these control variables are discussed.
3.3 Validity and reliability
According to Field (2009) validity measures whether the questionnaire measures what it was designed for. First a factor analysis with all the items of this study was done. The principal
component analysis method with Varimax rotation and an Eigenvalue greater than 1 was performed.
Absolute values were checked at 0.6 level. Items of user participation loaded on two different components and the project success items loaded on three components (whereas it concerns four dimensions). Two items of user participation were deleted, but project success still loaded on only three components. The possibility of entering five factors was used, but a total of five items would have been deleted when using this technique. It was decided to perform two separate factor analyses to test validity of user participation (independent variable) and change project success (dependent variable) to see whether this gained better results. The user participation factor analysis did not show remarkable outcomes anymore. Only one component was extracted, so all the items of the user participation construct fit into that component. No further subdivision of the items was necessary.
The factor analysis of change project success showed more complex figures. Three components were extracted, whereas change project success consists of four dimensions. Items of different dimensions loaded on the same factor. Aside from that, cross loadings above 0.4 were found. Different factor analyses were performed in order to gain better results, different items and even a whole scale (impact on the customer) was excluded, but this did not provide better results. That is why the possibility of entering four components was used. This factor analysis showed the best results. Each dimension of project success (with its own items) fits into another component and no cross loadings could be extracted anymore. The four dimensions of change project success could be retained, which is favorable for the outcomes of this research. Four items had to be deleted because the absolute values were lower than the required 0.6 level. Because the four deleted items belong to three different dimensions, no problems regarding to reliability arose. The deleted items and the dimension to which they belong are presented in table 1.
