User engagement in change projects.
A user perspective on successful involvement and
participation.
Thesis for the MSc BA Change Management Jasper van Gorcum – 1625748
University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business
Nettelbosje 2 9747 AE, Groningen Tel: 050 363 3741 Fax: 050 363 7970 j.van.gorcum@student.rug.nl Supervisor
Dr. Cees Reezigt, University of Groningen Mathijs Schilder AMI consultants
Abstract
Change projects are increasingly used in businesses and user engagement is one approach to increase the chances for success of change projects. For user engagement to contribute to successful projects nine factors need to be considered. These nine factors are the result of a literature review and interviews with engaged users. The interviews are semi-structured and comprise two sections; an explorative, theory building part and a theory testing part. The factors that contribute to successful user engagement are; impact of engagement, work relevant
engagement, comprehensive information, clear goals and parameters, a fit with the engaged person and abilities, timing of engagement, understandability of engagement, diversity and size of participation groups and a supportive atmosphere. The nine factors need further testing but do indicate they can increase the successful engagement of users and contribute to successful change projects.
Acknowledgements
I’m thankful for all the support and encouragements that made this thesis possible. First off, I’m grateful for the supervisors of this thesis. The encouragements of Matthijs Schilder and Peter Storm from AMI and their guidance in my search of an interesting topic. Their advice and their active involvement motivated me to stay critical of the directions my research sometimes took. I would like to thank Cees Reezigt for his constructive and timely feedback. His knowledge of the field, his determination and reviews were crucial to stay on track and improve my writing. Furthermore I would like to show my appreciation to Albert Boonstra, Karin Prins and Philiph Monsbourgh for their help and knowledge. I’m thankful for the support of Eveline van
Staalduine, Evert Sulman and Tineke van Gorcum in finding research opportunities and Hendrik Timmer’ motivational support.
Table of content
1 Introduction ... 3
1.1 Development of projects ... 4
1.2 Relevance of research ... 6
1.3 Research question ... 7
2 Theory of user engagement ... 8
2.1 General theory on engagement ... 8
2.2 Proposed factors ... 10
2.3 Visual presentation of proposed factors ... 13
3 Research design ... 14
3.1 Method and selection for data collection ... 14
3.2Approach to data collection ... 15
3.3 Approach to data analysis ... 16
4 Analysis of data ... 17
4.2 Themes... 18
4.3 New factors emergent from the interviews ... 18
4.3 Verification of proposed factors ... 21
5 Discussion of findings ... 24
5.1 Impact ... 25
5.2 Work relevant- client focus ... 26
5.3 Comprehensive information – risk of withholding information ... 27
5.4 Clear purpose and parameters – risk of fake engagement ... 27
5.5 Effects of successful user engagement. ... 27
5.6 Organizational context ... 28
6 Conclusion, future research and limitations ... 28
“The pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple.” ― Oscar Wilde
1 Introduction
In the search for ways to make projects a success, one proposed solution is to engage change recipients in the project. This makes sense from a change management point of view: “Since organizations consist of people and are made by people, organizational change is assumed to be mediated through individual changes. Thus, members of an organization must be the key source of energy for organizational change processes and for this reason, their commitment and
involvement are crucial factors for successful organizational change” (Soumyaja,
Kamalanabhan, & Bhattacharyya, 2011: 85). This idea has been supported in academic literature but it is not as straight forward as it might seem (Kotter & Schlesinger, 2008). McLeod,
MacDonell, & Doolin (2007: 117) have the following to say about user engagement and successful projects: “In summary, while at an abstract level there is broad and long-standing support for user participation in IS development, a more fine-grained analysis reveals some variation in opinion. Furthermore, actual empirical analysis (as opposed to more speculative commentary) suggests a range of practices and attitudes in terms of user participation”. A similar view is expressed by Markus and Mao (2004: 530, 536) “Participation by affected stakeholders does not just happen. Someone has to provide, design and execute participation opportunities for stakeholders; and how well he or she performs those activities is likely to make a difference in participation outcomes. […] We argue that it is not the mere fact or quantity of participation that matters, but also the quality of participation. Inparticular, we describe participation activities in terms of participants’ behavioral experiences (the types and richness of participation activities)”. In this research I want to explore what is needed to engage users successfully in a change project. I agree with Soumyaja et al. (2011) and Markus and Mao (2004) that user engagement can play an important role in change projects but there are a number of factors to consider when engaging users. In the literature on user engagement in project management, change management and IS projects management, some factors are suggested. A qualitative research, discussed in this article, will test these suggested factors and explore additional factors that help get users successfully engaged with a change project. These factors are possible directions for more in-depth research on user engagement and can help project managers who encourage users to be engaged with their projects. The article focuses on successful engagement of users and assumes that successful engagement of users contributes to the success of change projects. This
assumption is supported in the literature review and the discussion section presents some data clearly demonstrating the effects that contribution of engaged users have toward a successful project.
A qualitative research is conducted to test suggested factors and explore additional helpful factors. Ten employees engaged in change projects were interviewed from a user perspective, focusing on the user experiences.
First I will give a summary of the history of project management (PM), discuss the growing role of projects in businesses and explain change projects as a recent development in PM and change management (CM). This summary will show why projects are important in academic research and current businesses and what role user engagement plays in change projects. This review of PM and CM discusses two different perspectives on user engagement; a hard PM perspective that is focused on cost, time and quality and a soft CM perspective that is focused on the people and behavioral side of change projects. Following the summary, I will present the research question and provide a literature review of user engagement across different disciplines. I will propose five factors that literature suggests as being important for successful user engagement. The testing of these five factors and the discovery of four additional factors is presented in the analysis and results section. The article concludes with a discussion of more complex factors that play a role in successful user engagement.
1.1 Development of projects
1.1.1 Projects
A project is defined by the Project Management Institute as a temporary group activity designed to produce a unique product, service or result (http://www.pmi.org/). In the book ‘Projectmatig Werken: de basis’ by Savelsbergh, Jong, & Storm (2010), the authors note that projects are increasingly run by managers who have no previous experience with managing a project. This could be a symptom of the fact that in recent history deployment of projects has become more commonplace across companies of all descriptions.
Until 1980 ‘projects’ were limited to engineering, construction, defense and IT. Thirty years later projects are found in every form of organization. Not only are projects deployed across a wider range of businesses, frequency of projects has also increased. Martinsuo & Lehtonen (2007: 56) highlight this: “Not only one but several, even dozens or hundreds of projects are typically going on at the same time within a firm”. In some organizations projects are so central that they change their organization structure to become a ‘managing-by-project’ form of organization or a ‘project oriented organization’ (Huemann, Keegan, & Turner, 2007; Winch, Meunier, Head, & Russ, 2012).
1.1.2 Projects and change
One reason projects have become so common in organizations is a faster paced economy. To keep up with ever-changing demands projects are increasingly used to introduce change in organizations (Biedenbach & Söderholm, 2008; Gareis, 2010; Shenhar, Dvir, Levy, & Maltz, 2001). Projects used to introduce change are a specific type of projects, called ‘change projects’ (Crawford & Nahmias, 2010; Partington, 1996). Turner & Cochrane (1993) make this
distinction. They provide four different types of projects based on how well defined the goals and methods of the endeavor are at an early stage. The four types are engineering, new product development, software development and research & organizational change. Turner & Cochrane (1993) do not define change projects and still there exists no widely used definition for change projects. The definition used in this article is a combination of the views of Boddy & Macbeth
(2000) and Winch et al. (2012): ‘Change projects are projects managed with the intention to implement significant changes in the way (a part of) an organization works’. While the role of change projects is growing in the business world (Biedenbach & Söderholm, 2008) little research has been done on change projects, however the link between organizational change and projects has led to specific attention for change in project management in academic research (Gareis, 2010). A holistic view of project management includes the field of change management, because it is impossible to separate change from projects (Pádár, Pataki, & Sebestyén, 2011). The
combination of project management and change management is often explained as a combination of hard and soft perspectives on change management. The hard perspective is more technical and focused on the iron triangle of project management; cost, time and quality. The soft perspective of change management is about the human or behavioral side (Cooke-Davies, 2002; Crawford, 2011), for example employee adaptation or the need for interpersonal skills of a change manager (Partington, 1996). At first glance these two perspectives may seem contradictory but many point out that both perspectives are complementary and not conflicting (Biedenbach & Söderholm, 2008; Cooke-Davies, 2002; Hornstein, 2012; Winch et al., 2012; Winter, Andersen, Elvin, & Levene, 2006). As Lehmann (2010: 328) quoting Tréhorel (2007) puts it: “recently, matching change management (CM) to project management (PM) has become a new challenge for organizations: they want their changes to be more successful and see in project management a way to gain performance.”
1.1.3 Change projects and engagement
So the combination of the two perspectives of PM and CM results in change projects. The Universal Success Model (appendix 5) that Savelsbergh et al. (2010) discuss in their book proposes a number of variables that are important for the success of projects. One of these variables is actively engaging users and management. In academic literature separate research can be found on engaging users, engaging management and engaging stakeholders. There is a large body of research on all three subjects and this gives the variable ‘actively engaging users and management’ a wide scope in three different but related fields. For this research I choose to limit myself to users. I deem this focus to be necessary to do justice to the rich literature on user engagement and the complexity of the concept, considering the available time and resources for the research. To define user engagement I look to the article of Hwang & Thorn (1999) . They explain engagement as a general term that refers to both involvement and participation. User engagement in project management is applied to capture the demands of users. As previously explained, the focus of the project management perspective is mainly on cost, time and quality. It is not surprising that, in project management research and fields of business that have a strong project tradition, user engagement is applied to improve quality of the project outcome, reduce cost and/or time (Bryde & Robinson, 2005; Chen, Liu, & Chen, 2011; Packham, Thomas, & Miller, 2003). But as the use of projects has grown beyond engineering, construction and defense so has the definition of success grown beyond quality, cost and time. This broader definition often includes some form of client/user engagement and/or acceptance
(Pinto & Prescott, 1988; Shenhar et al., 2001; Söderlund, 2004; Westerveld, 2003), which is an indication of the softer, change management perspective in project management.
User engagement is applied in change management for different reasons than it is in PM. As change management has more affinity with the behavior of people, it tries to apply user engagement to increase adaptation, reduce resistance and increase the impact of a change program. According to Pardo-del-Val, Martínez-Fuentes, & Roig-Dobón (2012) resistance to change is one of the key subjects in change management and participation techniques is the best strategy to manage resistance.
User engagement in information system design (ISD) and IS projects has attracted much
attention and has already tried to combine the PM and CM aspects (Markus & Ji-Ye Mao, 2004; Wang, Shih, Jiang, & Klein, 2006). User engagement in IS projects has proven to be important for system success. System success can incorporate the traditional success factors of budget, time and quality and the CM success factors of system use, system adaptation and user satisfaction (Harris & Weistroffer, 2009; Wang, Chang, Jiang, & Klein, 2011).
The literature review of this article shows that the positive relationship between user engagement and project success has strong support, but there is currently no research with a user perspective to engagement. User attitudes are over looked and the implication is that users want to engage (Brown & Cregan, 2008). Because change projects are about changing the way users perform their work, their engagement should be considered especially relevant. But what makes users want to engage in a change project is as of yet unknown.
1.1.4 User perspective on engagement in change projects
In this paragraph I arrive at the focal point of my research; the question of what factors lead to the successful engagement of user? In academic literature no research is found on user
engagement in change projects specifically and as far as I’m aware, no one has taken a user’s perspective in the wider research on user engagement. User engagement is researched in different settings but no one has focused on the needs of the user for successful engagement. This research has a user perspective; this means that it looks for factors that lead to engagement that is considered successful by users and not only for factors that lead directly to project success. Previous research has suggested some factors but no attempt has been made to determine a comprehensive list of factors. In this article I hope to discover what makes users want to engage and make up for the insufficient attention given to the preferences of users in user engagement research.
1.2 Relevance of research
The previous paragraph explains that literature lacks knowledge on successful engagement of users. Butler & Fitzgerald (2001), among others, observe that user engagement can lead to higher project success but that user engagement is a complex phenomenon that needs more empirical research. Their research has a strong institutional perspective and fails to explain how users can
be successfully engaged. If we really want to understand how user engagement can help to make projects more successful, we will need to understand when users are successfully engaged
(Brown & Cregan, 2008; Butler & Fitzgerald, 2001; Wagner & Piccoli, 2007). There is a second reason why I think this research is relevant. User engagement seems to fit with the current zeitgeist. User engagement is discussed in a wide range of disciplines; from health care, public decision making and education to project management, product development and the social sciences. The development of the softer CM perspective seems to be indicative of the growing attention paid to the needs of employees. The individual’s right to speak about their experiences of being engaged in change projects seemed a natural progression. The words of Wilde printed in the introduction encourage me to make a critical and detailed analysis, especially of what
appears natural and obvious. In a recent summary on user engagement Rickinson, Sebba, & Edwards (2011) confirm the need for a more detailed look at engagement and note that there is much more rhetoric about user engagement and its benefits being written, than empirical inquiry into the process of user engagement. This research attempts to provide some guidance to engage users and set the stage for more critical and in-depth research into user engagement.
1.3 Research question
The central question in this research is: Which factors contribute to successful user engagement in change projects from a user perspective?
Sub questions that I raise to this question are: Which factors are found in the literature? Which factors do users see as important for successful engagement? How do these factors contribute to successful engagement of users?
The answer to the first sub question will result in a number of factors that will be tested in the interviews of this qualitative research. But the answer to the second sub question can contain more factors than the factors found in the literature. This means that this research is also explorative.
Many different authors in many different fields have researched the relationship between some form of user engagement, involvement, participation and project success (Wang et al., 2011). I believe that it is time to move on from the question ‘if’ user engagement helps project success and begin a more in depth study of what makes users engage successfully with a change project (Harris & Weistroffer, 2009). It remains unclear how the quality of user engagement can be determined, for example what makes individual users feel involved and when they will
participate seriously. Implied throughout this research is the link between successful engagement and project success. I do not believe that engagement is an end in itself, user engagement without any value for a project cannot be considered successful. Even though the focus of this research and the interviews is directly related to the successful engagement of users, the link of successful engagement and project success comes up in the interviews, most likely because engagement and project success are likewise closely related in the minds of users too. I will shortly discuss this in the discussion section of the article.
2 Theory of user engagement
Many different authors across different fields have researched some form of user involvement and/or participation. This section reviews the theory on user engagement in three different contexts, PM, CM and IS/IT projects. This review discusses the role of user engagement in the three fields and shows that it is important for project success. After this more general literature review, the article discusses a number of factors that theory suggests as being important for successful engagement of users.
First a short explanation on the term ‘user engagement’. A distinction can be made between user engagement, involvement and participation. This distinction has been advocated in the literature on user engagement in the field of IT (Barki & Hartwick, 1989; Harris & Weistroffer, 2009; McKeen, Guimaraes, & Wetherbe, 1994; Wang et al., 2006). Involvement is the psychological state of feeling engaged. Participation is the hands on, actively engaging. User engagement in this article includes both participation and involvement of users. In literature involvement, participation and engagement of users are not used consequently. Sometimes a researcher uses the term involvement for participating activities of users. To avoid confusing the terms this research consequently uses the term ‘engagement’ unless a specific psychological state or hands on activity of users is discussed.
2.1 General theory on engagement
2.1.1 Engagement in project management
In traditional project management, user engagement is not very important. When Shenhar et al., (2001) asked industrial project managers about the most important aspects of project success they were convinced that meeting time, budget and performance objectives are the most important aspects of their jobs. This is a symptom of the operational mindset where users or customers only play a minor role. Not surprisingly it has been argued that the traditional areas of PM, such as the construction industry, should engage more with stakeholders because capturing input from stakeholders can be crucial (El-Diraby & Wang, 2005; Mathur, Price, & Austin, 2008). This does not mean that the traditional view of project management is completely wrong, but rather that the traditional views need to be extended with new perspectives. As discussed in the introduction, one of these new perspectives comes from the fields of CM.
A response to this call to extend PM with new perspectives is the development of projects that pay more attention to value creation for stakeholders (Winter et al., 2006). Project management literature is becoming more outward looking and includes developments from other disciplines such as CM. With this development user engagement is becoming more important in PM. In traditional project management settings there is a growing awareness that user engagement can help to make projects more successful (Pemsel & Widén, 2010). Scariot, Heemann, Padovani, Jacobs, & Soares (2012 :2705)wrote an article with main purpose to “highlight the importance of taking specific precautions to integrate users in project development”. In their book Shenhar
& Dvir (2007) list impact on customers (or users) and their engagement as one of the five measurements of project success. Finally, Boddy & Macbeth (2000) in their article on change projects, confirm that it is important that the people who are affected by projects (e.g. users) should be convinced that the project is worthwhile. They argue that participation in projects is not always necessary because managers sometime need to make decisions without much
discussion. But even in those cases some form of user engagement should follow after a decision has been made. All these authors show that there is a growing awareness that user engagement can play an important role in PM.
2.1.2 Engagement in change management
User engagement is more prominent in the CM literature than it is in PM. An article by Haudan & MacLean (2002) is a great example of this, look for example at the following statement: “The purpose of change management is not to create a great change management plan. It is to engage people in your business so they think and act differently about it” (Haudan & MacLean, 2002: 225). Or in the words of Burnes (2009: 413) “The received wisdom in the literature on
organizational change is that employee involvement is crucial to successful change”. In a review of common cited works on change management, Boddy & Macbeth (2000) found that user engagement, or in their words ‘consulting widely with those involved’, is one practice that is commonly recommended for implementing change. Different studies of a more empirical nature support these claims that user engagement is important for project success (Hwang & Thorn, 1999; Markus & Ji-Ye Mao, 2004; Pardo-del-Val et al., 2012). User engagement in CM is discussed as a way to reduce resistance and increase change readiness. Change researchers have consistently found that change readiness is important for successful change (Holt, 2013) and opportunity to participate is found to significantly contribute to change readiness (Devos, Buelens & Bouckenooghe, 2007). According to Armenakis and Harris (2009) active
participation is critical for change readiness. In his review on the article of Armenakis and Harris Caldwell (2013) supports their statement and furthermore explains; when time for participation is limited, other forms of engagement can also increase readiness for change. Reducing resistance, on the other hand, is a way to counteract the negative influence that change can have on
employees (Boohene & Williams, 2012; Morgan & Zeffane, 2003) and it is vital in acceptance of change (Martinsuo & Lehtonen, 2007; Wittig, 2012). The CM literature provides some
guidelines that could help reduce resistance through user engagement. But all guidelines are general guidelines that organizations can use to reduce resistance to change and are only indirectly linked to user engagement. For example organizations should move from a hierarchical control system to a system that encourages employee initiative. Organizations should be supportive of employees, value their contributions and give them the opportunity to take responsibility for decisions that affect their work (Ertürk, 2008). Furthermore management should be committed to engagement and provide adequate resources and have an open
communication style (Brown & Cregan, 2008; Wittig, 2012). While those guidelines help to encourage organizations to engage with users to date no-one has attempted to compose a
complete list of factors that contribute to successful engagement of users, or test if the proposed factors with actual engaged users.
2.1.3 Engagement in IS projects
In the literature on IS/IT project (called IS projects from here on) the engagement of users is much discussed. Here user engagement is proposed to improve IS project outcome (Wang et al., 2011). User engagement helps to create systems that address the real need of users, and in that way improves system quality and adaptation (McManus, 2004). The IS literature on user engagement recognizes that it is not just the opportunity of user engagement but also the quality of this engagement that determines how engagement helps to improve project success (Hwang & Thorn, 1999; Markus & Ji-Ye Mao, 2004). It is about discovering the real needs of users not just about getting some engagement and IS project managers to be more aware of the important role users have for project success(Kensing, Simonsen & Bøker, 1998; Maltz, Shenhar, Dvir & Poli, 2012).
2.2 Proposed factors
Beside this more general theory on engagement and how it can contribute to project success, there are some recurring factors that are suggested to be important for successful engagement of users. The need for real engagement found in IS project literature is discussed in the factor impact of engagement. The need for open communication and support is found in a safe and supportive environment and timing and opportunities for engagement. These factors and the design of user engagement are reviewed in more detail.
2.2.1 First factor: Impact of engagement
The first factor that the literature suggests is important for successful engagement is the possibility to have an impact. From different fields of research it has been suggested that user engagement with empowerment, e.g. the possibility to change something, contributes to
successful engagement. Without any possible impact, users will see engagement a nothing more than a formality and evaluate it negatively.
User impact can be defined as the perception of the user, of the actual changes in a project as a result of their engagement. This contains an element of trust that their engagement will be taken seriously and can, or does lead to adaptation of the project. Also; trust in a project team or project leader, a perception of power to improve a project or design and seeing the effects that user engagement have been researched in different settings (Chen et al., 2011; Markus & Ji-Ye Mao, 2004; Munns, 1995; Petter, 2008; Wang et al., 2006). The results imply that the provision of user engagement is insufficient if users do not think their engagement will achieve the desired impact on the project (Harris & Weistroffer, 2009).
The importance of user impact has been suggested by Wang et al. (2006) in their research on user and developer relations. They state that interactions between the two parties are often not successful because user engagement is more symbolic than that leading to actual change. Fisher
(2011) and Petter (2008) both touch on the subject of user impact. They explain how a project manager’s interest in users must be honest and genuine; trust must exist in the relationship between the project team and the users, so that there is a real understanding of what users want and mean with their input. Both articles stress that user engagement should be taken seriously and it should not be used as a mechanism of manipulation to make the user do what the
management wants. In other words, user engagement should not just be a formality, but lead to actual change. In an article by Hartwick & Barki (2001: 33) the authors take a firm stand against meaningless participation, in their own words; “it would be too simplistic or naive to expect level of participation as a simple count or frequency variable to have a strong effect on … [project] success”. Jensen (2011) confirms this in his article on user engagement in a construction project. Jensen (2011: 41): “Genuine involvement requires some degree of involvement in decision-making. However, even without direct involvement in decision-making, users can have real influence on a project by being part of the information process. Taken to the extreme, user involvement can develop into a co-design process”. Manzini & Rizzo( 2011: 201) take the idea of co-design a step further: “The first step was moving the profile of the final user from being a carrier of needs and problems to being a non-design expert who can contribute to the co-design process with highly valuable knowledge, the second step is looking at final users as active and collaborative co-designers and co-producers; social actors endowed with creativity,
organizational capabilities and entrepreneurship and therefore capable of figuring out, enhancing and managing new solutions”. In their case studies Manzini and Rizzo (2011) show the successes of projects where users can have a real impact on projects, even to the point where users are running a project. But impact of user engagement does not have to be as extreme as a form of co-design. In their article McLeod et al. (2007) give a complete range of influence that users can have in projects. On one extreme users have no influence, they are not asked or unwilling to participate; they have no impact. On the other extreme user have strong impact where the user department pays for and/or controls the development. Controlling the development is comparable to the role the users play in the case described by Manzini and Rizzo (2011). McLeod (2007) explains that impact of users is a continuum between the two extremes. The influence of users depends on when and how frequently there is interaction between the users and the project team and how much consideration the project team gives to the input from users, e.g. whether their contribution is considered, taken seriously, ignored, misunderstood, or not even solicited. From a user perspective the need to have an impact with their engagement is important for a number of reasons. According to Phalen (2012) people have an innate desire to participate in something meaningful and generally want to make a difference. Users will have a feeling participation is meaningful and respected. They derive satisfaction if they can share knowledge or use their skills in an effective way. When the engagement of users has an impact, it gives them a sense of control over the outcome. This sense of control raises the confidence of users in a change process and improves their satisfaction (Harris & Weistroffer, 2009). If users can see their engagement has had a positive effect on the project, they will also be more satisfied with the change. On the other hand, when users have the opportunity to engage in a change project but
are concerned their engagement will not make an impact; they are likely to be less satisfied with the change project (Amoako-Gyampah & White, 1993; Brown & Cregan, 2008).
2.2.2 Second factor: Timing and opportunities of engagement
The second factor concerns timing and opportunities for engagement. There are different perspectives on the appropriate moment of engagement in the academic literature. Early
engagement might increase involvement and commitment or it could mean the project is not yet salient enough for users to be able to engage with a project successfully. Late engagement means that a change project is more salient but could reduce the chance to have any significant impact. Wagner & Piccoli (2007) describe that the timing of engagement can determine how successful engagement will be. In a similar fashion as Wagner and Piccoli (2007), this article proposes that the timing and degree of engagement will determine how successful engagement of the user is. Wagner and Piccoli (2007) suggest the best moment to engage with users is after the “go-live” moment, when a project is very salient. Other authors have different perspectives. In the field of IS development, there is a strong tendency to seek engagement as soon as possible in a project, to capture user demands before the development of a system (Mathur et al., 2008). For example, the article by Jiang (2002) suggests pre-project partnering to improve the relations between users and developers before a project begins. In new product development a trend is to use prototype testing as a form of user engagement, which occurs in the later stages of the project. Raskob, Gering, Lochard, Nisbet, Starostova, & Tomic (2011) simply state that user engagement during every phase of the project is not only possible, but important. In her article Petter (2008: 707) articulates a tactic of “keeping users involved and updated throughout the project”. The main message of Jensen (2011) is a similar one, user engagement in briefing starts pre-project to capture demands and remains a continuous process during the project. Pinto & Prescott (1988) take a look at critical success factors in the complete lifecycle of a project. They found that some form of user engagement is important in every stage of the lifecycle. In their article on
participatory design Reich, Konda, & Monarch (1996) also point out that participation cannot be a one-shot affair, participation requires continuous commitment in order to be successful. The various articles make clear that projects can vary in the timing and opportunity of user engagement. Reich et al., (1996) and Wagner & Piccoli (2007) in particular point out that timing is important for the successful engagement of users.
2.2.3 Third factor: Design - size and diversity of participation groups
The design of engagement is proposed by Markus and Mao (2004) as one of the critical dimensions of engagement. One aspect of design of engagement is the size and diversity of engagement. Size and diversity concerns who, and how many people are involved. Both Vadapalli & Mone (2000) and Buchanan, Abbott, Bentley, Lanceley & Meyer (2005) discuss design of engagement. They conclude that groups need to have the right mix of participants, be representative of all users and that it needs to include the right mix of skills. In addition, Petter (2008) suggests that the size of participation groups should be small.
2.2.4 Fourth factor: Design - understandability of engagement
The fourth factor is a second aspect of design; the understandability of engagement for users. Lee & Li (2011) note that users need to be familiar of which specific method or approach is used in case of participation, and understand the topic of engagement. Furthermore; the information that is presented or discussed during engagement should be understandable and the amount
adequately manageable (Phalen, 2012; Reich et al., 1996).
2.2.5 Fifth factor: Supportive and safe environment for engagement
The last factor that relates to successful user engagement is a safe and supportive environment during the engagement. Different authors argue for honest and genuine interest in user input from the project team and provision for the opportunity to speak without fear. It is important for users to feel respected during the period of engagement (Buchanan et al., 2005; Langan-Fox, Code, Gray, & Langfield-Smith, 2002). Managers should be user focused in their interaction meaning they listen more than talk, and they should provide users with any necessary support. Support can include necessary time, training or other forms of support in order to be able to successfully engage with a project (Axtell, 1997; Petter, 2008). Senecah, (2004) in Mathur et al. (2008) argues that the essential criteria for meaningful engagement include: providing
stakeholders with opportunities to speak without fear; ensuring that all opinions are respected; and enabling stakeholders to influence resulting actions. Kotter & Schlesinger (2008) discuss that support from managers can help achieve successful change.
2.3 Visual presentation of proposed factors
3 Research design
3.1 Method and selection for data collection
This research takes a deductive approach to the existing literature and proposes factors that contribute to successful engagement from a user perspective. The scope of the literature used to deduce the factors include PM, CM and IS projects. Through qualitative research, this is by its nature more inductive, the research tries to support the proposed factors and explore other factors. Thus, the research is two sided; exploratory on one hand and theory testing on the other. The testing part of this study provides empirical support for the list of factors that are proposed based on the literature review. The explorative part of this study suggests additions to this list of factors to answer the central question of this research. As Moller (2004) explains, interviews based explorative studies are useful to explain the ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions, where statistical correlations do not explain how or why the relationship is established. The goal of an exploratory study is to build theory or provide factors for future research. This article provides several factors that can serve as new directions for further research and as further guidelines for project
managers too. Theory building through interviews takes a less structured approach (Wengraf, 2001) and is reflected in the first part of my interview. In addition to the explorative part of this research, a set of theory-testing questions is included within the structured part of the interviews (Kvale, 2008). This will test whether the factors that are found in the literature are recognized as important factors for successful engagement of users by the interviewees.
For the selection of research sites, I looked for organizations that had recent experience with, or were in the process of organizational change. From a number of possible avenues, two
organizations were selected on the basis of availability. The first location is a faculty at a Dutch university, the second is an organization specializing in child care and child protection. Recently, the faculty changed to flexible working and moved into a new wing in the same building. The child care organization is undergoing a transition from being financed by the province to
municipal based financing and recently finished a change project to design and implement result-oriented working. The director of operations of the university and one of two division leaders of the child care organization were interviewed to provide background on the change projects and help with the selection of candidates. Five employees were interviewed from each venue. As Rowley (2012) indicates in her article, more than eight in-depth interviews of one hour duration will generally result in sufficient data. (Wengraf, 2001) also points out that when topics of interviews are more personal nature, a few in-depth interviews can provide adequate data. Saturation point is reached after eight interviews, when no new factors emerge and explanations become similar to earlier explanations from earlier explanations. This became evident in the last two interviews.
also ensures that the interviews are held in a similar context. In her article, Herzog (2012)
explains that the location of an interview can have a social and political meaning and encourages reflecting upon this when selecting possible locations suitable for interviews. According to Herzog the location of an interview is more than a minor technical matter of logistics but plays an important part in understanding the lived world that a qualitative researcher is trying to understand. Adler & Adler (2002) argue that the subject of the interview should determine the location of the interview. As my research studies user participation in a work environment, I prefer the workplace as the location of the research. However, through time and travel constraints the final two interviews were conducted over the telephone. But in both cases the interviewees located in their workplace.
Purposive sampling was used for the selection of interviewees. Together with the department head or supervisor of the teams subject to the change project, I selected candidates who had concrete experiences of participation in the change project (Janesick, 1994; Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2007). Neither the supervisor nor the department head were part of the project team, but their established workplace relationships made it easier to approach the interviewees.
Furthermore, as far as possible the candidates were selected to have differentiating views and appreciation of change and participation. This approach of maximum variety sampling is suggested by Morse (1994) when exploring concepts. This technique is expected to provide a wider variety of factors.
3.2Approach to data collection
Table one (appendix 3) provides an overview of the interviewees and a basic profile. The names of the interviews have been removed to maintain their anonymity.
Through semi-structured interviews with users who were involved in a change project, this research discovers what factors determine engagement as being successful for the interviewee. Semi-structured interviews simultaneously allow for theory building and theory testing
(Wengraf, 2001). Qualitative research will allows exploring new factors that are important for user engagement and attempt to verify the proposed factors. Interview questions are based on the research question and the sub-question, but are formulated in such a way to be understandable for the interviewee (Wengraf, 2001). The interview questions used in the doctoral paper by Cockrell, McBurnett, & Ellinger (2012)were used as a starting point. These questions are adapted and more questions were added, for this research. Because the interviewee and the interviewer are all native Dutch speakers, the interviews were held in Dutch. A translation of the interview questions can be found in appendix 2.
The first low-structured part of my interview is designed to set up an open conversation with the interviewee relevant to the research question (Denzin & Lincoln, 2007). The first two questions are general and serve to direct the conversation to the relevant experiences of the interviewee as a participation in the change project. The following three questions are designed to focus the conversation on factors that influenced the experience of the interviewee with his/her
participation (Flick, 2009). This particular order of questioning is encouraged by Fontana & Frey (2003) to break the ice and to gradually move from general to more specific questions. The questions are open questions designed to encourage the interviewees to give their own
perspective on user engagement. In addition, a number of follow up questions are prepared, to probe or restate the original question in order to deepen the interview or keep the conversation relevant (Barriball & While, 1994; Rabionet, 2011). Wengraf (2001) makes clear that though semi-structured interviews need to be fully prepared, the responses of the interviewee to the open questions cannot be predicted and improvisation is often required from the interviewer. Where improvisation was required, I took care to follow the instructions of Denzin & Lincoln (2007) to consistently maintain the intended meaning of a question.
The second part of the interview is more structured in an attempt to validate the proposed factors deduced from theories on user engagement, an approach put forth in the article by Barriball & While (1994). Theory testing in heavily structured interviews requires directive questions that leave the interviewee little room to maneuver (Wengraf, 2001). Each question steered the interview to one factor as a topic for further discussion with the interviewee. I took care that the ‘steering questions’ remained open questions, and not leading to a specific response, to allow the interviewee to respond with his or her own thoughts (Kvale, 2008; Wengraf, 2001).
As suggested by Rowley (2012) a pilot interview was conducted, when problems or obscurity emerged necessary changes were made to the questions. This interview was held to ensure that questions were clear, free of jargon and easy to understand. The pilot interview was conducted with an employee of the organization well known to the interviewer. This allowed for a frank evaluation and further discussion to ensure the interview questions inquired after the intended topics. The interviews were recorded and hand-written notes were taken during each interview. The interviews lasted between forty-five and seventy-five minutes.
3.3 Approach to data analysis
Based on the notes and the recordings a transcript of each interview was made. Where possible the recording and notes were reviewed immediately after the interview. The interviews were transcribed only as much and as exact as required for the research question (Flick, 2009), meaning that expressions such as ‘uhm’ and parts that were clearly off-topic but served to increase rapport were not transcribed. The transcriptions were then coded and analyzed for relevant and recurring themes (Flick, 2009; Rowley, 2012). The emerging themes from the interviews were then linked with the research questions of this interview (Wengraf, 2001). The themes that emerged from the first interviews were then applied to analysis of the later
interviews for more efficient analysis (Flick, 2009). A review of the interview notes also resulted in a pre-analysis list of relevant themes. In the final analysis recurring factors were grouped together, through color coding, with the parts of the conversation that went into more detail about a specific factor.
The purpose of the data analysis is to determine major themes relating to factors of importance in user engagement and then compare the various interviews in order to create a list of recurring themes. These themes are translated into factors and the context in which they appear. Color coding parts of the conversation dealing with a specific topic allowed me to identify underlying reasons and in-depth explanations about how a specific factor influenced the engagement of users within change projects. One color-code was used in the analysis of the interviews to identify the effects (or outcomes) of successful engagement of users.
In the analysis of the interviews, a factor was counted when an interviewee used a factor within his or her answer. Sometimes an interviewee referred to a factor in a few words as a clear answer to a question. At other times a factor was not directly mentioned, but was a central underlying theme in an elaborate answer. Both instances counted as one mark. When the same factor was mentioned in identical wording and context, it did not score double to avoid misrepresentation. To display the results of the analysis, a mixed method is used. Morse (2012) provides certain requirements for mixed method analysis, in this research quantitative analysis is mixed with the qualitative research approach. According to Morse (2012) the design of the semi-structured interviews allows counting and displaying the results in a matrix, but the sample size is too small for further statistical testing. The matrix (appendix 3) includes the number of references and how many interviewees discuss a factor, this design is found in the article by Ferreira, Antunes, Chadwick, & Correia (2010).
Where quotes are used to illustrate a finding, care was taken to use quotes evenly across all interviews, to avoid over-representing one interviewee in discussing of any one factor. The quotes used are selected because they illustrate a view not only of the quoted individual, also because its replicated in other interviews.
4 Analysis of data 4.1 Descriptive
This section provides an overview of the interviewees and the themes discussed within the interviews. Table one (appendix 3) gives some statistics of the interviewees, table two (appendix 4) shows what factors were discussed in each interview and how many times each factor was mentioned in an interview. The next part highlights some important observations before elaborating on the meaning of each factor.
Even though organization A did not have any formal roles assigned to any of its employees for the change project, employees were engaged through team meetings, information sessions and involvement in discussions on the transition.
Some observations can be made based on the descriptive statistics. The first is that only three factors were mentioned across all interviews. These are also the most discussed factors. What is also interesting to see is that some factors are of particular interest to specific users. For example,
factor six is mentioned remarkably often by interviewee seven. Despite apparent personal preferences for some factors there seems to be a coherent outcome. The factors that are most repeated in each interview are also the factors that recur in all interviews.
A remark should be made about the ninth factor. Even though the factor ‘supportive atmosphere’ is not mentioned often in an interview and by six of the ten employees, it might be more
important than these results suggest. The factor was always discussed in the context of having the time to engage in change. The six interviewees who did mention the need for a supportive atmosphere always saw it as obvious that they should have the time, or that time should be made available through reduction in other areas of work when they were asked to participate. In fact, this form of support seemed so obvious they didn’t feel it worth mentioning. It is my
interpretation that the other interviewees who did not mention the need of support in any way also saw it as too obvious to mention.
4.2 Themes
Nine distinctive factors related to successful engagement of users emerged as recurring themes of discussion in the interviews. These factors, their meaning according to the interviewees and the context in which they were discussed, are described below. The discussion section elaborates how these factors influence engagement, why these are deemed necessary by users and how these factors and engagement in general influence project success.
4.3 New factors emergent from the interviews
The explorative part of the element resulted in four factors that were not found in the literature review. The first is the need for comprehensive information about the user engagement with the change project. The second factor necessary for successful engagement is relevance of
engagement with the work of the user. The penultimate new factor is a suitable fit with a user’s person and her/his abilities. A combination of a clear goal for engagement and well defined parameters of participation is the fourth factor.
4.3.1 Comprehensive information
The comprehensive information factor was discussed in every interview. This factor was
discussed from two different perspectives. The first explained that all relevant information about the change project needs to be made available to the engaged users. Relevant information
includes the status of the change project, updates on the progress of other engaging users or participating groups, decisions relevant to the project, whom are involved with the change project and what the expected outcome of the change project is.Two quotes help to illustrate how far the demands for comprehensive information go:
“When I’m engaged in a change project I expect to hear about the changes that are the result of deliberate choices of the project team. But also about the undecided and unexpected things.” The interviewee wanted to be informed about the decision-making process of the project and not just the decisions of the project team. The second quote comes from a discussion by an
interviewee about the first meeting of the change project:
“There was an external bureau with a promotion speech about how beautiful everything would be, that is something you shouldn’t do in front of a critical audience (or any audience), everyone was like, sure we believe that, not […] I think, even if it is a little awkward, you should be open and transparent and share all the motivations behind the change, otherwise we won’t take you seriously.”
The second quote captures the second perspective of comprehensive information.
Comprehensive information includes the motivations and reasons behind decisions that were taken by a project team.
When the information that is shared with the engaged users is not comprehensive and users find out that relevant information is missing; it hinders successful engagement. One interviewee made this very clear:
“When you are engaged you want to have complete information. Not the feeling or that you discover half way through the change that something was held back. When you discover something was held back just to lure people in, that is fatal. So you want openness and transparency, not the feeling of a double agenda.”
On the other hand, when users are fully informed their engagement has positive outcomes. In the words of an interviewee;
“information is very important. When people are up to date then we can be involved and think about what is smart”.
In short, comprehensive information includes updates on the process that the project has made, the decisions and the motivations behind it and for no unappealing information be held back. 4.3.2 Work relevant
The subject of engagement should be relevant to the work of the user; this is the second new factor. This ‘work relevance’ of engagement involves more than the need of recognition. Users prefer to engage in change projects that target their daily work. One interviewee explained it like this:
“For me engagement is interesting when the daily practice and change policy are combined”. Both organizations (where the interviews were held) are service organizations. One delivers education as a service to students, the other welfare support to children. As a result, the daily work of all interviewees involves clients with whom they have personal interaction. For these users, a project is relevant to their work when it changes the way they work with their clients. This is not a discrete scale, where something either is or isn’t relevant, but it is a continuum. The interviewees distinguish change projects that are somewhat related to a part of their work, to change projects that have a big impact on their core activity, in this case client contact. The users see themselves as experts in their own work and because of their expertise want to be engaged in work-relevant changes. For example:
“When some external advisor says that this will work, but he hasn’t got any experience with the work we are doing, then he can’t possibly know that it will work for us.”
A final reason why users want their engagement to be relevant to their work is that they care, or
are invested in their clients. As one interviewee explains it:
“I have my concerns about the help we give to families, this change project will impact our work and the families could become the victim of it. […] this is a concern on the level of the workers, the managers concerns are on another level. […] this is something that I would want to do something about, be engaged with in some way”.
4.3.3 Personal fit
The third factor; mentioned less often than the fourth new factor, but is mentioned by more interviewees. This factor is about a fit between engagement and a person‘s interests and abilities. Even though a user’s interest and abilities can coincide with work relevant engagement, this factor is distinctive from the previous one. Think; for example, about change projects involving new IT hardware. Two different interviewees were aware that IT is relevant for their work, but one interviewee was not at all motivated to engage with that part of a change project whilst another interviewee explicitly enjoyed participating in an IT committee. Neither users considered themselves experts in IT, but one possessed more interest than the other.
The preference to be engaged in projects requiring specific qualities in a user is nicely illustrated by the following quote:
“There were a number of committees and for this one [a list of skills] were very important, so I think it is good that they asked me for it. Interviewer: Because that suits you? Interviewee: Yes exactly, that is what I mean [….] I’ve got some qualities in that area and it is nice if you are then asked because of that […] Interviewer: when do you think that your engagement is useful? Interviewee: […} when I can use some special capacities of mine.”
Two other quotes also illustrate personal preference can play a role in the motivation users have to engage in a project.
“Interviewer: What else is important for you? Interviewee: I would say that I’m engaged in a workgroup that is relevant to me. I would not much like to be in a workgroup that selects the color of the curtains.”
Another interviewee in the same organization:
“I also know about shapes and colors, so I would have liked to be involved in the design of the interior.”
While the interior is equally relevant to their work, one expresses a desire to be engaged and yet the other does not.
4.3.4 Clear purpose and parameters
To be successful user engagement needs a clear purpose and clear parameters. This last new factor is somewhat complex because the factor includes three perspectives. First, the purpose of engagement needs to be clear at the outset. This means that users need to know why they are engaged and what the expected outcome or result of the engagement is. To quote from one interview:
“When I’m asked by a project manager I at least want to know why I’m asked to engage and I need clarity about the end goal.”
Secondly, the parameters of the engagement need to be clear. The parameters define the scope of the engagement, what should be discussed and what has already been decided. As one
interviewee stated:
“when I’m engaged with a project I need to know where it can lead to, what power of decision we have got and what the margins are.”
Clear parameters of the engagement are important for another reason:
“Clarity about the project helps to decide whether to say yes or no to being engaged.”
Related to the scope of engagement is ‘engagement to keep up appearances’, this involves the third perspective. The interviewees express a strong aversion to engagement with a change project under the pretense that the opinion and insights of users is sought, when really the only reason for engagement is to create a feeling of involvement and reduce resistance. This pretense goes further than a lack of impact. In the words of an interviewee:
“When I look back on my engagement I’m quite critical, because I had the feeling from the start that the establishment of the committee was a farce, more aimed at mitigating protests than delivering a substantial addition.”
Or:
“Now it is an unstoppable change, we might be able to change some little thing but the rest is just fake engagement […] you need to make it very clear what users can influence and what not.”
It is possible that users are engaged after a decision has been made without any intention to alter the decision as a result of the engagement. It is possible for restrictions to be so strong they limit the possibility of implementing any significant engagement outcome, for example a tight budget. When these restrictions are not made clear, the user can feel their engagement is just a joke and this can lead to negative feelings toward the change project. Obscurity of what can and can’t be influenced has the potential to even decrease engagement:
“Our engagement decreased because we were misled, this increased resistance, it did more harm than good”.
To avoid misleading users and to improve their engagement, clear purpose and defined parameters are important factors.
4.3 Verification of proposed factors
4.3.1 Safe and supportive atmosphere
Three of the five factors proposed (based on the literature review) were extensively discussed within the interviews. A safe and supportive environment was hardly mentioned in the first open part of the interviews. Six of the interviewees did note that they needed to have time available to engage with a project, but aside from available time no other form of support was mentioned. The last question of the interview concerned workplace atmosphere and how participation in change is influenced by it. Despite this question, only one interviewee identified or recognized that workplace atmosphere might have any influence on user engagement. This respondent downplayed its importance. There are two possible reasons for low result in this factor. First, the
interviewees all gave the impression they were used to working in a supportive atmosphere with a great deal of independence. This could either reduce the need for further support or feelings of safety, or they were so used to a safe and supportive environment that few found it necessary to give it any further thought.
4.3.2 Impact of engagement
The need to have an impact with their engagement is the most discussed factor, it appeared to be something the interviewees expected:
“Just being heard is not enough” or
“we enjoyed thinking about what we could do about it”.
Even during one of the initial information sessions, one interviewee expected the possibility to have some impact:
“There needs to be more than just an informational speech and then walk out and shut the door.”
It is also the most important according to the interviewees. A few quotes can help to illustrate this.
“In the end it is all about having an impact”, “engagement without impact is of no use”,
“it is important to have the room to be of influence” and
“we as a committee expect to have a decisive or at least important say in the part of the project that we were engaged in”.
While the need for impact is important, just as the literature review suggested, interviewees were nuanced in what it meant to have an impact. In all interviews the need for impact was put within the context of engagement of a group of users. None of the interviewees required their personal opinions to have an impact on the project. As one interviewee explained:
“I do not expect an adoption of my thought but I add some part and some else adds a different part”
or
“interviewer: So to summarize it is important that your input is taken serious and that it has some consequences? Interviewee: yes but only as part of the whole”.
This distinction is also made when users are in a committee or workgroup.
“It is great of course if your own ideas are executed. I understand this is not always possible, but you at least want to have the feeling that the outcome of a workgroup has an important, if not decisive role in what eventually happens.”
But nuances do not mean that user engagement without impact is without consequences. A few quotes can help to illustrate some possible consequences.
“It is nice when I can make a change in the little details, but when I’m asked to attend meeting that discuss larger issues that have actually been decided upon it lowers my involvement. Interviewer: What does this do for your engagement? Interviewee: I focus on my work, I’ll
change when this is asked of me but until then I focus on my work and I stop worrying about and investing in things that I have no impact upon.”
Or:
“I want to see something happen. I can keep sharing ideas but if I never see a result, I’ll stop sharing. Then you might think I don’t care about any of this […] Interviewer: So when you don’t have any influence you withdraw from the change otherwise it leads to frustration? Interviewee: yes certainly, exactly.”
Other consequences involve the loss of motivation and unhappiness with the change project. 4.3.3 Design of engagement – size and diversity
When the interviewees discussed the design of engagement, this comprised mostly participation and the design of workgroups or committees. There are some concrete findings based on the interviews about size and diversity. First, groups are preferred to be small:
“I rather participate in a group of four than twenty” and
“when I’m participating I prefer smaller groups”.
This is in line with the findings within the literature. There was also recognition that larger meetings could also serve a purpose to inform users of coming changes. Two remarks of different interviewees are about large group meetings illustrate this point:
“The good thing about large information meeting for a new change project is that everyone is informed at the same time in the same way”
and
“I know these large meetings are necessary, but that is not where my priorities are”. Concerning the composition of groups there is one finding that reflects the literature; participative groups prefer to have some diversity. Three expressions exemplify this: “All groups or departments that are involved in a change should be represented in the committee”;
“I think that your small group members should represent the entire organization, in order to make decisions that are good for the organization.”
and
“the meeting served a purpose because all the different disciplines were represented. There were executing employees, managers and coordinators”.
For the interviewees, there was one personal benefit of diverse workgroups that was not found in the literature. Diversity in engagement provides an opportunity to get to know new people within the organizational structure and/or interact with colleagues in a different context from their normal work. This is not seen as a benefit for their private social lives, but as an improvement in their network. In the words of the interviewees:
“You have to work with others and you share and learn of each other’s expertize” and according to another interviewee:
“I got know a colleague who is working on interesting and useful things”.
Though as one respondent said:
“You never know beforehand what a good mix is in a group, it is always a coincidence that you meet interesting people”.
Every interviewee who discussed the design of engagement spoke of a positive experience meeting new people. The design of groups for user engagement should allow users to meet new people. In the case of the interviewees, groups comprising a diverse range of people from different departments and disciplines was sufficient to ensure they met new people. 4.3.4 Design of engagement – understandability
This factor is hardly mentioned in the interview, is this is quite different from what was found in the literature review. This could be explained by factors that were included in the design of engagement in the literature, emerging as separate factors in the interviews. For example the clarity of the goals of engagement can be related to the understandability of engagement. A second reason could be that the engagement did not use complicated methods or software. One interviewee discussed the understandability but the committee of the interviewee had no trouble understanding the design of their engagement, because the members had enough knowledge about the topic of engagement. Apparently, understandability is not only determined by the complexity of the design, but also by the knowledge or skill of the engaged users themselves. 4.3.5 Timing and opportunity
The final factor found in the literature on engagement and also discussed in the interviews; is timing of engagement. Though the topic was not raised by every interviewee, it does seem to be of some importance. Similar to the literature on timing and opportunity the interviewees
discussed the first moment and the number of opportunities for engagement. Like the literature, the interviews do not offer any clear guidelines to determine what an appropriate first moment of engagement is. But there are some aspects the interviewees mentioned to keep in mind. When information about the change is presented allowances should be made for some basic questions. When these questions are asked of the project team they should be able to provide answers, so a project team needs to think through a change project before engaging the users. This means; the interviews confirm this, that users need not be engaged from the first moment. The initial plans or brainstorming can be performed without engaging users. A project team can shape change projects, as long as users are engaged while there is still room to make some changes to the projects. One quote sums this up nicely:
“We need to be engaged often enough to be up to date, not necessarily in every phase. […] there needs to be some clear information when we receive the first information about an upcoming change project.”
5 Discussion of findings
In this section the more complicated factors will be discussed in further detail. Explanations how these factors influence the engagement of users, will be based on the interviews and the literature
