The Influence of Collective Sensemaking and Sensegiving Processes on the Interpretive Schemes of Project Members, Project Managers and Consultants During Top-Down, IT
Implementations: A Tripartite Perspective
University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business
MSc Business Administration, Change Management
I.J. van der Haar - S2785064 I.J.van.der.haar@student.rug.nl
Supervisor: Drs. H.P. van Peet Co-assessor: Dr. J.F.J. Vos
The Influence of Collective Sensemaking and Sensegiving Processes on the Interpretive
Schemes of Project Members, Project Managers and Consultants During Top-Down, IT
Implementations: A Tripartite Perspective
ABSTRACT
This study aimed to examine how collective processes of sensemaking and sensegiving between project members, project managers and consultants influence their interpretive schemes during top-down, Information Technology (“IT”) implementations. Two similar change cases of CRM systems were studied within two different organizations, involving situations of technochange. A total of 14 semi-structured interviews with five project members, four project managers and five consultants were conducted. Accordingly, data was analysed by two within-case analyses and a cross-case analysis. First, this study showed that different sensegiving efforts were utilized by the different actors. Subsequently, the results showed that a participative change-style, participation of employees in a project team and corresponding sensegiving activities by project managers and consultants during initially top-down, IT implementations can increase employees’ change capacity and willingness to adjust their old interpretive schemes. Participative sensegiving activities by project managers and consultants within the context of a project team had a positive influence on project members’ sensemaking processes, which increased their change capacity. Accordingly, this study clearly revealed the influence of emergent contextual factors (“Non-participating employees’ sensemaking” and “Phase of the change project”) on participating actors’ sensemaking and sensegiving processes, and their related interpretive schemes. As participating actors experienced resistance and rigidity to old interpretive schemes of non-participating employees after the go-live phase of the IT system (despite their involvement in the change), meaning constructions and interpretive schemes of participating actors were adjusted towards a more critical view towards the organization and its change capacity. Accordingly, sensegiving efforts were adjusted in order to achieve the required mind-set change. Furthermore, this study contributes to the existing literature by holding a tripartite perspective, studying the project member – project manager – consultant triangle. Finally, this study clarified the understudied consultant-client relationship and their unknown interactions during top-down, IT implementations.
Keywords: Top-down Change; IT Implementations; CRM Implementations; Agent-recipient
TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ... 5 LITERATURE REVIEW ... 8 Sensemaking ... 9 Sensegiving ... 10 Interpretive Schemes ... 11 Top-down, IT Implementations ... 12
Sensemaking, Sensegiving and Interpretive Schemes: A Tripartite Perspective ... 14
METHODOLOGY ... 15
Case Selection And Participants ... 15
Data Collection ... 17
Data Analysis ... 18
RESULTS ... 19
Analysis case I: Towards Relation –and Contract Management ... 19
Analysis case II: From Process-oriented to Client-oriented Treatments ... 28
Cross-case Analysis ... 37
DISCUSSION... 45
Discussion of findings ... 45
Theoretical implications ... 50
Practical implications ... 51
Limitations of the study and future research opportunities ... 53
REFERENCES ... 55
APPENDICES ... 60
Appendix I: Interview Protocol Consultant ... 60
Appendix II: Interview Protocol Project Manager ... 62
Appendix III: Interview Protocol Project Member... 64
Appendix IV: Coding results case I: Towards Relation -and Contract Management ... 66
INTRODUCTION
The study of organizational change is one of the major topics within the organizational sciences, as it is manifested within two, general themes: 1) the exploration of antecedents and consequences of organizational change, and 2) the way organizational change develops, grows, and terminates over time (Van de Ven & Huber, 1990). While many theory is available regarding change management practices, most change projects rarely achieve the intended, substantial success (Pettigrew, Woodman, & Cameron, 2001; Kotter, 1995; Beer, 2000). To provide an example, the success rate of Information Technology (“IT”) related change projects, such as the implementation of an IT system, is in general quite low. According to a Gartner survey, approximately 70% of Customer Relationship Management (“CRM”) implementation projects resulted in either losses or less improvement in organization performance, and less than 34% of the IT projects were finished on time and within budget (Standish Group, 2003). A probable cause for the low success rate of change initiatives might be the narrow focus on change management, which neglects the involvement of different stakeholders in a change initiative. Subsequently, a majority of studies concentrated separately on the roles of two main stakeholders, holding a unilateral perspective on change recipients (Bouckenooghe, 2010; Oreg, Vakola & Armenakis, 2011) or change agents (Higgs & Rowland, 2011). While there is no reason to assume that these stakeholders share the same understanding of the change (Bartunek, Rousseau, Rudolph, & DePalma, 2006), the same change intervention can be interpreted quite differently, leading to different experiences and focus on action (Kanter, Stein, & Jick, 1993). Therefore, scientific and business interest for an alternative, bilateral perspective on change management is growing. In accordance, studying the underlying social dimensions and interactions among different stakeholders is becoming a topic of interest (Ford, Ford, & D’Amelio, 2010; Burnes, 2014).
With regard to the role of change agents (or so-called change managers), current literature especially holds a focus on the change strategies and interventions executed by internal change managers (Higgs & Rowland, 2011; Cawsey, Deszca & Ingols, 2012; Saka, 2003). However, when embarking on complex, IT-related change processes required to cope within the turbulent area of the global and digital market, internal change managers increasingly tend to hire external consultants to assist them in the process and to enhance quality and speed (Appelbaum and Steed, 2005; Ben-Gal & Tzafrir, 2011). External consultants are nowadays viewed as one of the most important providers of new management and change practices (Armbrüster & Glückler, 2007). As a result, management consulting is becoming a rapidly growing business (Kaplan, 2000). However, Pellegrinelli (2002) mentioned that there does not seem to be a correspondingly large number of scientific data on the practice of management consulting in change projects, while the consultant-client relationship is proven to be crucial in the process of generating shared meaning construction and shaping a new organizational reality, necessary for the change success. This lack of studies might be due to the fact that consultants and change managers have shown aversion to investigating their mutual relationship, despite the relevance (Pellegrinelli, 2002).
Knowledge derived from studying the roles of internal and external stakeholders and the underlying sensemaking –and sensegiving processes that shape their relationship has a positive impact on the change initiative, as is emphasized by several authors (Maitlis & Sonenshein, 2010; Ford, & D’Amelio, 2008). The examination of collective sensemaking and sensegiving processes between internal change managers, consultants and employees leads us to a tripartite perspective on change management, emphasized by Smith (2002) and Pellegrinelli (2002). They highlighted the necessity of further scientific consideration of collective sensemaking and sensegiving processes during organizational change, since stakeholders create a partially shared meaning construction by these processes, necessary for the overall success of the change. Accordingly, since current literature has a focus on sensemaking and sensegiving processes of internal change managers only (Maitlis & Sonenshein, 2010), an opportunity is created to study these processes from and between stakeholders involved in a change project (Pellegrinelli, 2002; Kraft, Sparr, & Peus, 2015).
LITERATURE REVIEW
This study examines sensemaking processes between project members, project managers and external consultants during top-down initiated IT implementations. Since stakeholders can influence each other during the change, sensegiving processes will be examined too. Accordingly, sensemaking and sensegiving processes have an influence on stakeholders’ interpretive schemes, necessary to fit the changed situation into their interpretive schemes.
According to Higgs & Rowland (2011), change agents (in this study: internal/ external project managers and external consultants) participating in a change project create and guide the implementation of a change initiative, such as the implementation of a new IT system. On the other hand, change recipients (in this study: project members) are the ones subjected to the change and have to carry out the changes concretely (Klonek, Lehmann-Willenbrock, & Kauffeld, 2014), such as a correct use of the IT system. Consequently, external consultants, hired by the respective internal project manager(s), assist the internal project managers in the implementation of the change initiative across the organization. Consultants are important providers of new management ideas and practices (Armbrüster & Glückler, 2007). The next sections will provide descriptions of sensemaking and sensegiving processes between project members, project managers and consultants and their influence on their interpretive schemes, holding a tripartite perspective. Finally, the role and importance of sensemaking and sensegiving processes during top-down, IT Implementations will be described. For an overview of the study, please see figure 1.
FIGURE 1
Sensemaking
Within this study, the definition of sensemaking by Karl Weick (1995), the main contributor to the research field of social processes during change, is used. According to Weick (1995), sensemaking is “the process of social construction that occurs when discrepant cues interrupt individuals’ ongoing activity, and involves the retrospective development of plausible meanings that rationalize what people are doing.” Sensemaking is about actors’ meaning construction and reconstruction, as actors try to understand the nature of a change by creating and using a meaningful framework or a so-called schemata (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991). Since employees explain and interpret the new situation by these schemata’s, sensemaking can be viewed as the basis of understanding stakeholders’ perspectives and behaviour in change initiatives. During organizational change, feelings of anxiety and fear can arise, since people have to change their current way of behaving, thinking and acting in order to fit the new situation (Ashford, 1988). In other words: they have to change or revise their old ways of thinking, or so-called “old interpretive schemes”. It implies that actors have to re-enact their environment, in which the re-enactment can be influenced by processes of sensemaking (Maitlis & Sonenshein, 2010). A conclusion can be made that change initiatives force employees to actively engage in sensemaking (Weick, 1995), which is ongoing and reciprocal, since actors make sense of the change while it happens (Maitlis & Sonenschein, 2010; Gioa & Chittipeddi, 1991). In accordance, processes of sensemaking can play an important role in the creation of new interpretive schemes (Bartunek, 1984), which are mental, imaginary platforms or assumptions by which actors make sense of their changing environment.
have an influence on actors’ sensemaking processes and the creation of new interpretive schemes through discussions, negotiations and stories and gossip (Balogun & Johnson, 2005). So, the existence of different stakeholders in a change should not be ignored, since different sensemaking processes can lead to different interpretations of the change (Dawson & Buchanan, 2005).
While 10 years ago studies already showed that sensemaking and social processes of interaction between managers and employees play a crucial role during organizational change (Balogun & Johnson, 2005; Kraft, Sparr, & Peus, 2015), it is remarkable that most studies still concentrate mainly on employees’ and managers’ sensemaking processes separately. Collective sensemaking processes seem to be important, since these processes enhances the creation of shared meaning (re)construction and shared interpretive schemes (Maitlis, 2005), necessary for a corporate or common understanding of the change (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991). Therefore, this study will examine collective sensemaking processes of project members, project managers and consultants. By taking this collective perspective on sensemaking into account, the role of the external consultant should not be excluded. According to Buono (2004), sensemaking holds great potential in clarifying the consultant-client relationship. Furthermore, Argyris (1999) stated that negotiation and construction of meaning by consultants and their clients may offer new insights into the consulting project. Pellegrinelli (2002) argued that consultants’ own conception of reality and their sensemaking processes might be influenced too by employees and managers of the organization, which in return might have an influence on the project. Therefore, investigating sensemaking processes from a tripartite perspective is relevant.
Sensegiving
Lawrence, 2007). In conclusion, sensegiving is important for the overall change success. Especially, sensegiving during top-down change can be crucial, since employees involved in this type of change are less likely to engage in positive behaviour (Styliano, Pepper, & Mahoney-Phillips, 2011), which might lower their willingness to commit to the change.
When looking at sensegiving processes from a tripartite perspective, most studies are concentrated on sensegiving processes exerted by managers in order to influence employees’ beliefs, perceptions and attitudes toward the change (Maitlis & Lawrence, 2007). However, academic and practical interest in sensegiving processes by other (external) stakeholders is growing (Maitlis & Lawrence, 2007). Since partnering with management consultants continues to grow and is a topic of great interest among managers (Kaplan, 2000), this study will examine sensegiving by consultants as well.
Interpretive Schemes
Fleming (2001), the role of managers and consultants is considered as important during organizational change. They can perform sensegiving processes in order to influence actors’ sensemaking processes and interpretive schemes towards the desired direction, beneficial for the success of the change project by enhancing the required behaviour of the stakeholders.
As is mentioned in a study by Labianca et al. (2000), a gap in academic knowledge exists about the extent to which interpretive schemes are shared among individuals and how these schemes can be influenced by social processes between different actors. Individuals in groups (Meyerson & Martin, 1987) and individuals with different status levels (Smith, 1982) might interpret the situation differently. Especially, these differences are even more prevalent when subgroups feel that their interests are neglected or overlooked (Labianca et al., 2000). These findings indicate possible differences in interpretive schemes between different individuals and groups in an organization. Therefore, this study examines how sensemaking and sensegiving processes from a tripartite perspective might affect interpretive schemes.
Top-down, IT Implementations
change is just as important (Markus, 2004; Legris & Collerette, 2006). Managers should act as sponsors of the change and should view the process as a special, temporary process, requiring active and regular presence in the field to ensure that things are moving well (Legris & Collerette, 2006). Managers and other specialists (e.g. external consultants) should collaborate together in order to achieve the desired objectives (Markus, 2004), which directly stresses the importance of studying IT implementations from a tripartite perspective by clarifying the client-consultant relationship.
Based on Markus (2004), situations of technochange involve great changes in the processes and organizational performance, but also and on the users. Unfortunately and due to an extensive focus on the technology itself (Legris & Collerette, 2006), many of the IT-related change projects fail. Experts estimate that 75% of organizational change efforts involving technology fail due to technical issues, but mainly because of weak implementation models that neglect human and social issues (Legris & Collerette, 2006) or negative reactions to changes in work processes and use of the technology (Markus, 2004). Therefore, one should acknowledge that technochange cannot happen without recognition of social issues as a result of changed jobs, tasks and organizational processes alongside with new IT (Markus, 2004). Therefore and based on Balogun et al. (2016), the change target of technochange should be on both outputs and behaviours by focussing on what people do (output) and the way they do it (behaviour). A participative change style can facilitate this type of change. It can create commitment to the change by involving employees in how to deliver the desired changes, as it enables change agents to retain greater control over the outcome (e.g. desired behaviour & output) of the change (Balogun, Hope Hailey & Gustafsson, 2016). However, employees can perceive this style as manipulative and time-consuming (Balogun, Hope Hailey & Gustafsson, 2016).
find difficulties in accepting the change (Bresser Pereira, Maravall & Przeworski, 1993). On the contrary, organizations can choose to implement a CRM system by a bottom-up approach. Based on Balogun et al. (2016), a bottom-up approach can be linked to a participative change style. The strengths of this approach are the incorporation of CRM planning by the frontline employees, system improvements and customer knowledge at all levels of the company (Ahearne, et al., 2012).
Building upon the former and alongside different change styles and implementation strategies, change agents should acknowledge the importance of involving system users. For instance, project teams can be organized, in which the important sensegiving-role of project managers and external consultants is central (Legris & Collerette; 2006, Ahearne et al., 2012). Accordingly and to overcome the risk of failure of IT Implementations, project managers more often start to collaborate with external consultants. However and as was mentioned earlier, their interventions can create tension within organizations (Reger & Palmer, 1996), which may negatively influence employees sensemaking processes. Therefore, studying collective sensemaking and sensegiving processes from a tripartite perspective during top-down IT Implementations is quite interesting.
Sensemaking, Sensegiving and Interpretive Schemes: A Tripartite Perspective
To illustrate the important links between sensemaking and sensegiving processes on stakeholders’ interpretive schemes, a vast amount of literature denotes that interpretive schemes can be revised by social processes (Gioa & Chittipeddi, 1991; Fleming, 2001). To illustrate, there is agreement about the influence of sensemaking on interpretive schemes, since it can change old interpretive schemes into new ones (Labianca et al., 2000; Bartunek, 1984; Balogun & Johnson, 2005). However, explanations differ on how these changes occur. Labianca et al. (2000) stated that changes are due to scheme comparison, whereas Bartunek (1984) states that conflicting schemes lead to new ones.
METHODOLOGY
This study develops new theory within the area of collective sensemaking, sensegiving and the influence of these social processes on stakeholders’ interpretive schemes, holding a tripartite perspective. A specific change context of top-down, IT Implementations is chosen, since this change context remains understudied. The explanatory design is used by collecting qualitative data to produce descriptive and explanatory knowledge (Aken, Berends & Van der Bij, 2012). In order to generate new theoretical insights, an explanatory and theory-development approach is used. Observation of the phenomenon in more situations is done by a multiple case study. A case study allows the researcher to examine theoretical concepts in the daily practice of the study participants (Yin, 2003), as it enables replication logic and enhances external validity, since the results are better grounded (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007; Eisenhardt, 1989).
Case Selection And Participants
Two similar case studies within two different organizations are selected, in which the implementation of a new CRM system (called “Salesforce”) involved changes in system users’ behaviour and tasks. According to Yin (2003), each case in a multiple-case study should be selected in a way that all cases predict similar results (i.g. literal replication) or contrary results for predictable reasons (theoretical replication). In order to ensure literal replication, cases are selected that were led by the same consulting company, and which include a similar setting: top-down, IT implementations which include a tripartite structure. Furthermore, change projects were selected that were still going on in order to ensure that participants had the project fresh in mind.
conducted, several conversations (e.g. meetings, phone calls) with consultants participating in the change projects took place in order to gain specific background information about the change project -and process from the beginning to the end. In below, the respective change cases will be described.
TABLE 1 Details of Participants
Description of case I: Towards Relation -and Contract Management
The first case study involved an IT implementation project within a Dutch Healthcare Insurance company, carrying health insurance for different brands, serving 4.2 million customers good and affordable health care. In order to anticipate quickly to new technological developments, Salesforce was implemented. Salesforce is a Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system that provides a deeper understanding of customers by insight into their personal preferences, as the system is able to solve any problem faster with access to past customer interactions.1 The main purpose of the implementation of Salesforce was to strengthen collaboration of two related departments. In the past, these departments did not collaborate enough by performing specialist work activities, facilitated by their own client system (Excel sheets and Scope). The focus of employees was on client-agreements, which had to change towards the client himself and each other’s work activities. Therefore, a mind-set change was required. For a further description of the case, please see the results section (p. 19).
Description of case II: From Process-Oriented to Client-Oriented Treatments
The second case study, similar to the first case study, involved an IT implementation of Salesforce as well, within a particular department of a Dutch bank that serves corporate and private clients. The main goal of the implementation was the segmentation of clients in order to focus their business processes on the client. The department takes responsibility for the treatment of clients who have
1
payment arrears on their mortgage. In the old situation before the implementation of Salesforce, employees performed specialist functions and took responsibility for one single phase of the client-treatment due to the existence of different client-treatment-phases in the business process. By their specialist functions, collaboration with other teams responsible for other treatment-phases, was brought to a minimum. Employees of the respective department were not aware of each other’s work activities. Subsequently, a strong team culture was created by a focus on one single phase of the treatment process, facilitated by their old system called “OnGuard”. However, the old system did not offer opportunities to view each other’s work activities: it was limited in use, which strengthened the client-phases-culture. For a further description of the case, please see the results section (p. 28).
Data Collection
Data Analysis
After data was gathered by means of semi-structured interviews, each recorded interview was transcribed. Based on the research steps of theory development studies (Van Aken, Berends & Van der Bij, 2012), interview transcripts were transformed into a valuable representation by coding, consisting of deductive and inductive codes. Since a limited amount of articles in this research area are available, this study aims to develop new theory. Therefore, a general inductive approach is applied by multiple interpretations of raw data (inductive) and deductive data based on research objectives (Thomas, 2003). Examples of deductive codes in this study are “old interpretive schemes” and “new interpretive schemes”, both derived from a study by Balogun & Johnson (2005). Accordingly, inductive coding was used in order to gain important issues for participants instead of important issues from the perspective of the researcher, beneficial for a theory development approach (Hennink et al., 2010). An example of an inductive code is “visualizing”.
RESULTS
Within this section, two similar change cases at two different organizations will be analysed separately. Accordingly, a cross-case analysis is followed that provides similarities and differences between the two cases based on the main concepts of this study: sensemaking, sensegiving and interpretive schemes. Furthermore, the coding process revealed additional contextual factors that played an important role in this study, which were not included in the design of this study. These factors will be described and analyses in the sub-sections “Contextual factors”. Final, after each within-case analysis a short conclusion of the results will be provided.
Analysis case I: Towards Relation –and Contract Management
In this analysis, the IT implementation of a new CRM system called “Salesforce” within a Dutch Healthcare Insurer will be discussed now. The results of the coding process are presented in Appendix IV. This IT-related change project started approximately 6 months (April, 2016) before the first interviews took place (October, 2016). The top management of the Healthcare Insurer (IT directors) decided to implement Salesforce as their new CRM system in order to improve quality to their clients. Introductory conversations and negotiations were held with the main supplier of Salesforce in the Netherlands, which was the respective consulting company. Subsequently, an intensive screening and selection process of the consultants took place, in which the top management made selection-decisions by means of the Best Value Procurement (BVP) method. 2 Taken the foregoing into account, the top management had the authority regarding the “what of change” (the implementation and use of Salesforce) and the direction and control of the changes. In this project, the IT directors were the main clients of the consulting company, as they had control over the financial budget. Therefore, the change-start point of this project can be conceived as initially top-down. However, the actual change style of the management and the two appointed project managers can be interpreted as participative. After the decision was made to implement Salesforce by the respective consulting company, approximately 15-20 employees (i.g. project members) were asked and appointed to participate in a project team for 5-12 hours per week regarding the completion and preparation of their new CRM system, in collaboration with seven consultants. Project managers selected project members on their willingness to participate, skills, abilities and experience in the organization. The consulting company advised their client in this selection process, but the Healthcare Insurance company decided which employees met the requirements. Employees were also selected on the basis of their stake in the change, as they were called “subject matter experts”. The project team used a specific work-method, known as Agile-Scrum: “Scrum is one of the Agile frameworks and can be used to develop software in a team in an effective, flexible way. The core of Scrum is a multidisciplinary and self-directed team. Together, the team picks up the project. Everyone is involved in the planning, identify blockages and
2
dividing the tasks. Thereby Scrum assumes that the necessary knowledge on the team is present.”3 The top management of the Healthcare Insurer and the consulting company agreed on this specific project method at the beginning of the change project, as the Healthcare Insurer organization was already familiar with and positive about the use of this project method. Project members (“C1-EA”, “C1-EB”, “C1-EC”, “C1-CD”) came together with the consultants (“C1-CA”, “C1-CB”, “C1-CC”) once a week in order to jointly build, test and discuss the system. Accordingly, they were responsible for the implementation of Salesforce before the deadline of October 1st, 2016. Project members’ main tasks were content-related, such as defining system requirements. Accordingly, they provided their non-participating colleagues information about the system and progress during presentations and daily interactions at the department. During the case study, project members of one department were already working with Salesforce as they passed the go-live deadline of October 1st 2016. The other department delayed the go-live of Salesforce to March 2017, since they had to set up and deal with the yearly healthcare campaign (October – December 2016).
Besides the existence of a project team, in which parttime project members and consultants collaborated, the parttime project managers (“C1-MA”, “C1-MB”) collaborated with the consultants in 1-to-1 sessions and in a so-called steering committee. Within this committee, the project managers of the involved departments and the IT directors made formal decisions with regard to the change project (e.g. defining the role of consultants or budget-related decisions). Taking the role of this steering committee into account, the change style can be interpreted as directive as well, since they made major decisions about the why and what of the change, using their authority to achieve the change goals. An example of the type of decisions that were made consisted the changed role of the consultants. The external project manager of the consulting company was replaced by an internal project manager due to a limited financial budget available to the change project. This role-change and its effect on consultants’ sensemaking and sensegiving activities will be explained in the next sections. The other consultants of the consulting company kept their role in the project, as they were involved in the project team and thereby responsible for the content of the change, (e.g. technical aspects as building the system). Besides the steering committee, project managers had frequent contact with the consultants (approximately once a week), since the consultants were working at their client’s office each day.
1. Sensemaking
At the beginning of this project, initial meaning constructions of all internal actors concerning this change project were rather positive. However, they were not fully shared. Most project members’ meaning constructions were initially positive, since they acknowledged the benefits of a new CRM system in order to guide their tasks in the desired manner. However, some project members were
3
curious and critical about Salesforce, as one project member did some personal research about the benefits of the system. This divergent meaning construction is similar to project managers’ meaning construction. To illustrate, project manager C1-MA was from the beginning clearly positive about the project. In contrast, project manager C1-MB was more critical about the size and scope of the project. However, after the implementation of Salesforce was scoped out to two departments, this project manager became more positive, as his meaning construction changed into a more positive meaning construction.
Besides positive meaning constructions of project members and project managers, the interviewed consultants mentioned a more critical view at the beginning of this change project due to the expected complexity, low priority and the authority of the top management. The complexity was explained by consultant C1-CA: “I saw that it was challenging, because it was the first project that went over divisions.” Creating a mind-set change among employees, required for collaboration and desired use of the system, was argued as complex, since employees were used to focus on their own tasks and department. Accordingly, a more critical and negative meaning construction was mentioned due to the government (and directive change-style) at the beginning of this change project, as consultant C1-CA stated: “In this case, the sponsor was an IT person. So, the governance was not that good. It was not the right client.” This rather negative initial meaning construction was shared among the interviewed consultants. The IT directors were the ones who decided and paid for the project. From this stance, the change start-point can be characterized as top-down. To illustrate, the respective IT directors decided to set priority to the go-live and implementation of Salesforce before October 1st 2016, instead of setting priority to the business by including change management practices, in which the consultants played an important role. Therefore, the role of the consulting company changed. As consultant C1-CA explained this role-change: “We were hired on the basis of our responsibility and now we went back to flat detachment and the responsibility came in the hands of (name of client organization) now.” This role-change had a rather negative influence on consultants’ meaning construction, as they became more or less flabbergasted. Accordingly, consultants shared their meaning construction with regard to the top-down character of this change project, which seems to be in contrast with project members’ meaning construction. These internal actors mentioned that they did not conceive the change as top-down, as was explained by project member C1-ED: “And that is basically because we immediately have been involved in these pilots. That was really good to do so. Therefore, it does not feel to me as an imposed system.” One can assume that the involvement and participation of project members in the project team had a positive influence on their meaning construction.
some project members. A distinction can be made in meaning reconstructions of 1) project members of the department who already implemented and used the new system when the interviews took place, and 2) project members of the department that delayed the go-live of Salesforce. This delay was a result of the yearly healthcare campaign (see section “Contextual factors”). Project member C1-EA was initially positive about the change project, but became a bit disappointed as a result of the delayed implementation and use of Salesforce. Meaning constructions of project managers did not change, as project manager C1-MA described: “No, we are going to do this. We have one goal. The release is now March 15, 2017. And then it will be implemented, no matter what.” Final, meaning constructions of consultants became more critical due to their role-change and the low priority for change management practices.
The influence of social processes of interaction clearly played a role in all participants’ sensemaking processes, due to their involvement in the change project. Discussions between consultants and project members about functionalities of the system and problems encountered in the system had a positive influence on project members’ meaning construction, as project member C1-EA mentioned: “Yes, (name consultant: C1-CB) ... I occasionally got in a good discussion with that consultant. So that is nice. You also learn from it.” In accordance, project managers and consultants had planned conversations with each other on a weekly basis, since consultants acted as their partner in the project. Their partnering role will be described in the “Sensegiving” section. Consultants of the consulting company also had much interaction with each other, especially regarding their changed role. These interactions facilitated them in collectively making sense of the situation by defining their new role. 2. Sensegiving
In this section, sensegiving processes between project members, project managers and consultants will be discussed, in which specific sensegiving tactics will be explained.
Sensegiving processes by consultants
developed: the user stories, and what do we want exactly. But they also showed and asked us: is this what you mean? Well, that's very good.” Consultants and project members collaborated in weekly project team meetings and personal sessions, as consultant C1-CB mentioned: “So, we try to understand what they are doing and linking it to the possibilities in the system.” In order to delegate responsibility and involve project members in the change, consultants worked at the office of the Healthcare Insurer company, physically and close. Consultants asked project members to communicate about the change process and the system to the rest of the organization (e.g. non-participating employees) during presentations and knowledge-sessions. Accordingly, consultants visualized the system’ functionalities and results of the change to project members to make them familiar with the new system. Delivering results within each three weeks was part of the Agile-Scrum method. Giving sense by means of visualizing had a positive influence on project members, as project member C1-EA mentioned: “They briefly showed a lot of concrete examples like: “This is different, this is faster, and so on.” And they had demos, so we could see it directly. Yes, I became enthusiastic.” In accordance of making project members familiar with the system, consultants also trained project members in the use of the system by giving workshops. As consultant C1-CC mentioned: “We had a theme that was called "Making client offers." A sales department should be able to make offers to customers in the new system. We gave a workshop.” Final and as came forward in all sensegiving activities, consultants tried to create trust and made personal connections with project members in a business and private context in order to achieve a certain goal. As was mentioned by consultant C1-CC: “At some point they see you as a trusted advisor. Then you notice that they accept more of you, their behaviour will change, discussions will stop earlier and they really want your advice.”
An additional remark should be made regarding consultants’ sensegiving activities. After a few months the change project started, consultants adjusted their sensegiving efforts towards project members and managers towards more content-related sensegiving (e.g. technical advice), due to their role-change (see section Contextual factors).
Sensegiving processes by project managers
In general, less sensegiving activities took place from project managers to consultants, as project managers delegated much responsibility to consultants and they already agreed on the change approach at the beginning of the project. Mainly, project managers gave sense to consultants by providing organisation-specific information in order to provide a clear understanding of the business process, the department and the organization, required to fit in the new system. Regarding sensegiving by project managers to project members, project managers collected information about the progress of the change by asking questions, as is explained by project member C1-EA: “And he asked us every day: “How was it? What did you discussed? Are there things changed, are things are going well?” Yes, he does that perfectly.” Both project members and consultants mentioned that the respective project managers delegated much responsibility to project members. In some cases, project members experienced this sensegiving tactic as positive. In other cases, project members made critical notes regarding this way of sensegiving, as project member C1-ED stated the following: “To be honest, there was actually too less attention from the senior management with regard to the project.”
Building upon the former, project managers mentioned that they tried to show that the change project was important by promoting the change and celebrating results. However, both project members and consultants experienced this way of sensegiving quite differently, which seems to be in line with the quote of project member C1-EB, as was stated: “In fact, I think that the persons responsible for this project had to emphasize the importance of the implementation and the importance of Salesforce in (name of organization) more. [...] Really creating engagement.” So, one can assume that this way of giving sense by project managers had little influence on project members, due to the fact that project managers may delegated too much responsibility. This might be due to the abstract character of the project as consultant C1-CA explained: “What I saw was that ownership of the two managers on the business side at the beginning was not that big. And later it became more, because it was too abstract at the beginning.” After the go-live of the system, project manager C1-MB became more involved, due to the phase of the change project (see section “Contextual Factors”).
Sensegiving processes by project members
positively influenced him in that way. So that was taken into consideration whether or not to proceed with Salesforce.” Accordingly, project members tried to influence project managers by creating management support about decisions that had to be made regarding the system’ functionalities. As was explained by project member C1-EC: “Creating a bit trust, showing and saying: These appointments are made, these are the products. And also showing that some things are implemented. It is also good discuss with the directors, so they are convinced of the functionalities and that they are willing to encourage their employees.” This quote clearly indicates the great involvement of project members in the change project, since project managers delegated much responsibility to them. Second, project members gave sense to consultants by providing organisation-specific information, similar to project managers’ sensegiving tactic towards the consultants. Project members’ efforts were confirmed by consultant C1-CA, as was mentioned: “So, it took a lot of time in order to understand all the different desires and stakeholders in that context. We walked that road together with the business.” Since project members had an important stake in the change project, since they became the actual system users, project members tried to defend their (business) interests regarding the system. As project member C1-EA mentioned: “But I do not know if my opinion was impactful, but I have tried as much as possible to prioritize our interests. But they were also heard.” Third, project members in this change project mentioned that they gave sense to their non-participating colleagues during formal (e.g. presentations) and informal occasions (e.g. interactions during the daily activities at the department). In order to involve non-participating employees as well and creating support and acceptance for the change, project members presented the system’ functionalities and results on a weekly/monthly basis. As was explained by project member C1-EA: “We had a session in which I did a small presentation about my work, and then you notice that people see the opportunities. Yes, that is nice to show.” 3. Interpretive Schemes
the beginning of the change project as rigid and bureaucratic. They acknowledged that the hierarchy made it more difficult for them to act as a leading guide, which was their initial role. Apparently, their role changed after a few months due to re-decisions by the top management. Therefore, interpretive schemes of the interviewed consultants more or less stayed the same (critical), as consultant C1-CA mentioned: “It's more that I see that the main topic of (name of client organization) board are costs and expenses.” Accordingly, project managers’ interpretive schemes stayed the same as well, as they were still positive about the benefits that were offered to the organization by the implementation of Salesforce, as project manager C1-MB stated: “Collaboration in the whole chain is very hard. I notice that it is getting better, and this project has contributed to that collaboration.”
In contrast to the unchanged interpretive schemes of consultants and project managers, some project members mentioned changes in their interpretive scheme. Before the change project took place, project members in general were enthusiastic and positive about the change project, since they were convinced about the benefits of the system in terms of collaboration between the two departments. However, as a result of social processes of interaction and close collaboration with other project members in the project team, some interpretive schemes were adjusted. Project members became more critical about the change project and the change capacity of the organization. As project member C1-ED mentioned: “There are simply some things left that should happen, and that is not just the system. On the one hand, though, because some user stories have to be implemented, but we really have a role in ensuring that consistency is sought on the other side. That everyone will use it.” In contrast to project members, consultant C1-CA already expected that the change capacity of the organization was low, based on the consultants’ experience, as was mentioned: “I had to think about the fact that IT managed the resources and budgets, since the business in overall had no capacity to change, and what surprised me is that this business also did not come with visions.” Taken this quote into account, old interpretive schemes of project members and consultants were significantly different. However and after a while, project members recognized rigidity to old interpretive schemes of their non-participating colleagues. They recognized this rigidity, as they experienced rigidity by themselves at the beginning of the change project. As was mentioned by member C1-EA: “At the beginning, I struggled too with the new way of thinking, like: “How does that exactly work? You're really into your old system.” Since project members were given much responsibility, they acknowledged that a mind-shift of their colleagues was not there yet, as it was a more complex change project as they might thought. They became more critical towards the organizational change capacity, as their interpretive schemes changed as a result.
4. Contextual factors
project members and consultants’ sensemaking processes, as it resulted in some negative meaning reconstructions and interpretive schemes. Project member C1-EA clearly mentioned the negative effect on non-participating employees’ sensemaking by including just a small amount of employees in the project team: “You experience that everyone thinks: Okay, but I don’t know Salesforce. I have not seen much about it, I see few enthusiastic managers. I don’t know, do I have to use it?”. Unfamiliarity with the new system and low involvement in the change resulted in negative sensemaking processes of non-participating employees, which in return lowered their change capacity. Accordingly, consultant C1-CA clearly expressed some critical thoughts about the small project team and its result on the overall change project: “Finally, 10% of the people that have to carry the changes were involved: it stayed within the team.”
A second contextual factor involves the role-change of the consultants, which had a negative influence on their sensemaking processes. At first glance, consultants were asked to perform a guiding role, and one external project manager (consultant C1-CA) was hired. However, the interviews revealed that the internal project managers did not support the idea of hiring an external project manager at all, which resulted into re-decisions about the role of consultants. As project manager C1-MA mentioned: “So initially we said; we hire an external project manager. And I tell you honestly that I am in favour of internal project managers.” As project manager C1-MB explained the role-change: “It had less to do with the fact that (name consultant: C1-CA) performed insufficiently, but because it is also very expensive. And that's the reason when we replaced him for an internal project manager at a given time.” Due to their role-change, the remaining consultants collectively made sense of the new situation in a more critical and negative manner, as they had to adjust their sensegiving activities. As consultant C1-CB mentioned: “But ultimately that role-change brought that you 1 of 2 times say: “Guys, maybe it's smarter to do it that way." And you now think, okay, we'll do it your way. So, little resignation, less proactive. Just because they have assumed that role to themselves.”
and non-users’ sensemaking processes and attitudes towards the change project was confirmed by project member C1-ED: “And now people will be more alert. Now (project manager C1-MB) and the division managers are involved and stop by and ask me: how does this work? Then I am thinking by myself: if you had been involved from the start off you knew the answers.
Fourth and final, the yearly healthcare campaign, resulting into a low change capacity (due to peaks in the business process) and delay of the implementation had a negative influence on project members’ sensemaking. Despite the fact that project members acknowledged and accepted the delay, they became disappointed as well, as was mentioned by project member C1-EA: “And now the process is stopped for a while, and that it is a pity, because it is obviously campaign time. But we have to deal with that.”
5. Conclusion of the results
In conclusion, this change project regarding the implementation of Salesforce at the two respective departments was organized and led by a parttime project team. The internal project managers had a smaller role in the project team, as they delegated much responsibility to project members and consultants with regard to the execution of the change. The role of the project managers consisted of making (budget-related) decisions regarding the change project in collaboration with other members of the steering committee. Therefore, most sensegiving activities were initiated by project members and consultants, in which project members played an important role in sensegiving activities towards their non-participating colleagues. As a result of several contextual factors, project members and consultants mentioned changes in their sensemaking and sensegiving processes during the change project, in contrast to the unchanged sensemaking processes and resulting interpretive schemes of both project managers. A distinction should be made between interpretive schemes of project members who already used the system, and project members who did not due to the delay of the implementation, as the non-users showed a stronger commitment to the implementation of Salesforce at their department.
Analysis case II: From Process-oriented to Client-oriented Treatments
project team consisting of an external project manager, internal IT representatives and project members (e.g. employees of the respective department). Therefore, the “how of change” or change-style of this manager can be interpreted as participative, since approximately eight internal employees of the bank were involved in the change project. In principle, the internal project manager C2-MA made major decisions regarding the change project on a parttime basis, in collaboration with the top management of the bank, being part of the project board. Besides an internal project manager, an external project manager (“C2-MB”) was hired in order to manage the overall change process from the beginning to the end, while involving employees (e.g. project member “EA”). Project member C2-EA performed the role of team leader of the respective department before the change project started. Based on her many years of experience in the organization, this person was asked to make the link between business requirements/needs and IT opportunities, as project member C2-EA had frequent contact with non-participating employees of the respective department in order to involve them. In collaboration with the internal project manager, the project team chose the most effective, flexible and easy-to-implement system for their department, which became Salesforce. Introductory conversations and negotiations were held with the main supplier of Salesforce in the Netherlands (the respective consulting company). Subsequently, a screening and selection process of the consultants took place in the fall of 2015, in which the bank demanded that the consultants already had experience with the financial sector and the implementation of Salesforce in a similar change context. Accordingly, seven consultants were hired and added to the project team (October 2015) in order to design and build Salesforce. The consultants worked at the office of their client for almost each day. The project team used a specific work-method as part of the change approach, known as Agile-Scrum (see explanation page 19). The project team agreed with the consultants on this specific project method during the selecting process, since the bank was already familiar with and positive about the use of this method. By means of sprint reviews, in which the results of the change project and Salesforce were presented to every one of the department, non-participating employees were involved in the change project as well. Accordingly, the systems’ functionalities were jointly tested with non-participating employees, which emphasizes the participatory change style.
C2-MB will be announced as “project manager” instead of “consultant”. During the case study, Salesforce went live (November, 7 2016) one week before the first interviews took place.
1. Sensemaking
The interviews showed that initial meaning constructions of all participants concerning this change project were positive. However, there were some small differences due to different roles within the project team. In general, project member C2-EA mentioned an initially positive meaning construction, which did not change over time, since the obstacles of the old system were solved by implementing and using a new CRM system. Both project managers mentioned a positive meaning construction as well, which was characterized by a critical note. They shared their meaning construction regarding the complexity and amount of work left, since a complex mind-set change was required in order to achieve the desired use of the system and to enhance collaboration among employees. As was mentioned by project manager C2-MB: “So, I expected some issues about employees’ thoughts about the system and how it works.” Consultants shared this view. However, they were initially positive about change project, as was mentioned by consultant C2-CA: “It was a very good organized project. Especially, the way how project management was organized really surprised me by the use of Scrum within the project team. Also, the positive atmosphere and clear role distribution was clear, which is very important.”
The system is different, people get other teams, other functions, different behaviour is expected from people. It's very, very much.” An overload of changes made non-participating employees more stuck in their old actions and behaviour. As a result, non-participating employees showed rigidity towards their old interpretive schemes (see section “Interpretive Schemes”).
Within this change project, social processes of interaction played an important role in all participants’ sensemaking processes. Since the interviewed actors participated in the project team on a fulltime basis (except of project manager C2-MA), there was no direct collaboration and interaction with non-participating employees regarding their daily tasks. Therefore, the project team tried to interact with non-participating employees in other ways. To illustrate, day-starts at the respective department took place in which all actors of the project team had interaction with non-participating employees, as was explained by project manager C2-MA: ”We have a day start. My team is able to tell every morning how they feel about the system, which issues they face, what went well and what should be improved, which help they need. It is a very important way for the project team to gain insights about issues and what should be improved.” Besides daily planned interaction with non-participating employees, the project team also interacted with each other on a daily basis by means of the Agile-Scrum work method. As part of this work method, the project team started with a so-called “stand-up” meeting each morning, in which all project members, project managers and consultants talked half an hour about their daily tasks, issues and problems concerning the change project. As project member C2-EA mentioned the positive influence of this type of interaction: “We always find a solution, but there was some discussion about the reasons why. I think that is a good thing.” Accordingly and as part of the Agile-Scrum method, another way of interaction was explained by consultant C2-CB: “In this aftercare period and during the project, we had retrospectives. Those are sessions in which we evaluate the past days and weeks and how we experienced those days.” Concluding, interviewees interacted with each other on a daily basis concerning the change project (e.g. issues, problems, rumours) in order to collectively make sense of the change project. Accordingly, interviewees interacted with non-participating employees as well about the system and the overall change project during the day-starts. In general, project member C2-EA played an important role in the interaction with non-participating employees by means of several sensegiving tactics, which will be described further in the next section.
2. Sensegiving
In this section, sensegiving processes between project members, project managers and consultants will be discussed, in which specific sensegiving tactics will be explained.
Sensegiving processes by consultants
sessions at the specific room where both actors were working each day. Consultants influenced project member C2-EA by visualizing the system’ functionalities, as project member C2-EA mentioned: “They showed where you could find that element and how it looks like in the system. They used their laptop and we saw it on a big screen.” As a positive result, the respective project member became familiar with the system, which made it easier to accomplish her main task: linking the business needs with IT opportunities in Salesforce. Second, consultants influenced the project member by setting priorities with regard to the design of the system and the overall change project. Third, consultants actively involved project member C2-EA in defining the new process and systems’ requirements, as consultant C2-CA mentioned: “My role is quite a bit deeper, also by challenging the needs of the customer. "What do you want now, is that really smart? How do the processes look like?" So, thinking and designing it, and then you start to build it into Salesforce.” Collaboration between these actors was strengthened, since consultants were physically present at the office of the bank each day, which had a positive influence on project member C2-EA. As a result of this physical presence, in which the external consultants collaborated with the internal project member in the same room each day, project member C2-EA mentioned the following: “I feel that there is no difference between someone who works here or someone we hired, like (name consulting organization). We do it all together, and everything is possible.” This quote clearly implies the strong, cooperative relationship between external and internal actors in the project team. Consultants actively tried to build a strong relationship by creating a personal bonding and trust regarding the results of the change project that will be or already were achieved. Final, consultants provided the project member and non-participating employees the opportunity to ask questions about Salesforce by means of a consultation hour twice a day, as was mentioned by consultant C2-CB: “In the morning and afternoon we have a consultation hour. You can see it as a consultation hour in order to ask questions: What are your obstacles, what do you think is hard, what do you need to serve the client? Asking questions.”
that easy. The department faced challenges. Than you have to be there for each other when you have less success than you might expected.” Consultants tried to facilitate project managers throughout the change project. Fourth and final, consultants gave sense to project managers by giving them technical –and process related advice. As was confirmed by project manager C2-MA: “They influenced us more with regard to the technical solutions and what is possible or not.” This sensegiving tactic is due to the expertise role of the consultants by focussing on the content of the change project: Salesforce. Sensegiving processes by project managers
Within this case study, an internal and external project manager jointly participated in the project team. With regard to sensegiving activities by the internal project manager C2-MA, this manager tried to influence consultants in the change process by providing organisation-specific information. As project manager C2-MA explained: “So, what I did was explaining clearly how it works, so sharing knowledge about the department.” Accordingly, project manager C2-MA tried to influence consultants by setting business priorities, as was mentioned: “I think that I influenced them by not directly accepting it when things in the system were not possible. So, setting priorities.”
employees. Project member C2-EA explained the positive influence of this sensegiving tactic: “Project manager C2-MA delegated a lot of responsibility to me, because I worked on the department for a long time compared to my manager. That worked well.”
Another way of sensegiving by project managers was visualizing the system’ functionalities and the results achieved in the change process during the sprint reviews, part of the Agile-Scrum work method. As was explained by project manager C2-MB: “So, after each three weeks a sprint-review was organized in which we tested and showed what we had made, as we asked their opinions and what should be improved.” Besides visualizing, project manager C2-MB influenced project members by having frequent and personal contact in order to create a strong work-relationship. As was mentioned by project manager C2-MB: “It's a pretty small department, so I walk regularly by someone or meet someone in the corridors to do some conversations. Personal contacts.” Final, both the internal and external project manager gave sense to project members by supporting and promoting the change project and the Agile-Scrum method, as project manager C2-MA explained: “So, I also stressed that things are going well.” Subsequently, management support of project manager C2-MA helped the external project manager C2-MB during the change process, as was mentioned: “At the same time it helps me that (name manager: C2-MA) is also a supporter of the entire Agile work method, the entire Agile mindset.”
Sensegiving processes by project members
required system’ functionalities, solving technical problems or adjusting functionalities) became one of the main tasks of project member C2-EA. With regard to the dynamic and sometimes complex in-between role (business versus project team) of the project member, consultant C2-CA mentioned a critical note: “The project member became a little bit "overloaded" because she was the only one who had knowledge of the processes. Everyone pulls on her, as I did, (name of project manager C2 MB) also needed to know things from her, the business wants to know everything. So, at some point you noticed that it was too much, which was a project risk.”
3. Interpretive Schemes
With regard to the interpretive schemes, interviewees were asked about their view towards the organization at the beginning of the change project (“old interpretive schemes)” and their view at the moment the interview took place (“new interpretive schemes”). First, project member C2-EA, project manager C2-MA and project manager C2-MB shared their old interpretive schemes. As was explained by project manager C2-MB: “Everyone has their own department. Its own system, and if that system does not work then you are the only one affected. [...] So, people are very analytical, accustomed to thinking in terms of problems and finally to lay a solution, but the responsibility always lies at the other party to take action.” These three actors shared their old interpretive schemes, since they jointly defined the old and new situation of the department at the beginning of this change project, in contrast to the consultants. Consultant C2-CA mentioned a more critical view towards the organization due to the many formal rules of a general Dutch bank, which was argued as unfavourable for the change project and its change capacity. In contrast, consultant C2-CB was less critical and more positive about the bank, as was stated: “At first, I thought it was a pretty innovative bank. Nice atmosphere, open atmosphere, people are really focused on the future, especially with innovative ideas. [...] Nevertheless, the first image was a modern bank.” Thus, in contrast to the project member and both project managers, consultants did not share their interpretive schemes at the beginning of the change project.
