Preparing for transformational change: a framework for assessing organisational change readiness

Full text

I
nt. J. Human Re
s
ources Development and Management, Vol. 17, Nos. 1/2, 201
7
129
Copyright © 2017 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.
Preparing for transformational change: a framework
for assessing organisational change readiness
Gayla S. Napier*
Fielding Graduate University,
2020 De La Vina St.,
Santa Barbara, CA 93105, USA
Email: gaylanapier@comcast.net
*Corresponding author
David J. Amborski
Change, Learning and Performance Practice, Ciber, Inc.,
6312 S Fiddler’s Green Circle, Suite 600 E,
Greenwood Village, Colorado 80111, USA
Email: damborski@ciber.com
Victoria Pesek
Department of Finance & Management,
State of Vermont, 109 State St.,
Montpelier, VT 05609-0401, USA
Email: tori.pesek@gmail.com
Abstract: The organisation in this case, along with the collaboration of staff
and a consulting partner, completed an organisational change readiness
assessment in anticipation of an enterprise-wide system transformation.
Preparation of people ahead of disruptive technology implementation provides
a unique opportunity in any organisation. The subject of the case, a state-wide
public sector entity, lacks an institutionalised change management culture
and faces challenges consistent with many government organisations. The
assessment methodology resulted in a significant amount of data that provided
people, process, and cultural insight. The challenge facing the state is how to
respond to the assessment as they plan for the technology project.
Keywords: organisational readiness; organisational behaviour; readiness for
change; business transformation; organisational change; behaviour change;
strategy; technology project; enterprise resource planning; ERP.
Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Napier, G.S.,
Amborski, D.J. and Pesek, V. (2017) ‘Preparing for transformational change:
a framework for assessing organisational change readiness’, Int. J. Human
Resources Development and Management, Vol. 17, Nos. 1/2, pp.129–142.
Biographical notes: Gayla S. Napier holds a MA in Human and Organisational
Systems from Fielding Graduate University, and a MA in Human Development
from The Fielding Institute. She is currently a Principal with Ciber Inc.,
where she focuses on organisational change and transformation. She is a
practitioner guiding and facilitating organisational transformation efforts. She

130 G.S. Napier et al.
has over 15 years as an organisational development and transformation
professional. She has a strong background in strategic business consulting and
leadership development acquired through experience as an external consultant
with Fortune 100 and 500 global and regional companies. She is currently an
advanced doctoral student pursing the Doctor of Human and Organisational
Development at Fielding Graduate University, Santa Barbara, CA, USA.
David J. Amborski is the Director of the Change, Learning and Performance
(CLP) Practice for Ciber Inc. His responsibilities in this role are to manage the
design, development and measurement of innovative change management,
training and performance improvement processes in support of business
transformation and process improvement projects. He led numerous large-scale
change management and learning engagements related to business
transformation and business process optimisation. He has over 40 years of
industry experience and has led and provided quality assurance management
and oversight on over 20 enterprise resource planning (ERP), business
transformation and related consulting engagements. He is recognised as an
expert in process assessment and employee skill development. He has been a
guest instructor for process improvement courses at several universities. He is
also certified in lean manufacturing and holds a Six Sigma Green Belt
certification. He has numerous publications including the recently published
iBook: Practitioners Guide to Change Management.
Victoria Pesek is the Change Management Director for the State of Vermont,
USA at the time of writing. Her education includes an MBA from Harvard
Business School and a BS in Mechanical Engineering from Worcester
Polytechnic Institute. She is currently a Business Process Improvement Lead
for the Boston Beer Organisation focusing on leveraging IT to serve finance,
accounting, human resources and legal departments. Previously, she served as
Change Management Director for the Department of Finance and Management
in the Agency of Administration for the State of Vermont. She has considerable
experience implementing, supporting and improving ERP applications and
supporting business processes.
This paper is a revised and expanded version of a paper entitled ‘Organizational
readiness for transformational change’ presented at the International
Conference on Management Cases 2015 ICMC 2015, Greater Noida, India,
3–4 December 2015.
1 Introduction
Practitioners often tout preparation as the first step in readying organisations for change
(Ackerman-Anderson and Anderson, 2010; Amborski and O’Rourke, 2012; Hiatt and
Creasey, 2003; Kotter, 1996; Kotter and Cohen, 2012). As organisations embark on
major business transformations the need to assess and develop organisational change
readiness practices cannot be over emphasised. Too often, the implementations of
information technology solutions to drive business transformations neglect the human
factor. A number of studies have shown that new technology and best-in-class business
processes alone cannot guide organisational success (Carton and Adam, 2003; Foster
et al., 2004; Wei and Wang, 2004).

Preparing for transformational change 131
Understanding organisational culture and anticipating the impacts of change help
form the foundation of effective implementation plans (Ke and Wei, 2005; Southern,
2005, 2006). Most organisations do not consider change readiness until a project is
underway. However, applying the same readiness criteria and data gathering techniques
prior to a transformation project provides organisations with advanced understanding of
the areas where significant technology or process change is required. This advanced view
provides insight to the people challenges. It also provides technology and process
improvement teams with better awareness into project decisions and their downstream
effect on the people who must adopt the new system and processes. In anticipation of
significant changes where people, process, and technology face considerable disruption,
application of practical assessment tools combined with proven theory offers a means of
evaluating organisational readiness (Scaccia et al., 2015; Shea et al., 2014).
This paper illustrates the approach taken for developing an organisational change
readiness assessment for a state-wide public sector institution planning an enterprise
system transformation. The approach highlights the methodology and forward thinking
for assessing the organisation’s future readiness and adoption capabilities, emphasising
proactive assessment and planning. In other words, allowing for the people related
requirements to have an equal impact on project decisions as technology and process. The
study involves a collaborative approach with the people affected, understanding their
needs and wants within their respective jobs, not just revolutionising their world and
expecting them to accept change because they are now required to do so. When the State
of Vermont decided to act on its vision to improve administrative and operational
effectiveness throughout the State, they engaged Ciber, Inc. to perform an organisational
change readiness assessment, hereafter referred to as ‘readiness assessment’.
The study makes three contributions to the literature. First, it adds to the literature
on the benefits of including organisational change activities during technology
transformation initiatives to ensure success (Foster et al., 2004; Hawking et al., 2004;
Ke and Wei, 2005; Stein et al., 2003). Second the study posits that when complexity
exists due to workforce behaviour change requirements, the interplay of evaluating
organisational readiness and preparing for behaviour change is far more intricate than for
technology adoption alone. This perspective contributes to the view that planning for
change can lead to a positive attitude towards business transformation (Carton and Adam,
2003; Shea et al., 2014). Third, the study illuminates a methodology and approach for
assessing organisational readiness for change. This methodology offers further insight
into how organisations can evaluate readiness for change both at a personal and
inter-organisational level (Armenakis et al., 1993; Shea et al., 2014).
2 Context of the study
This readiness assessment was conducted as part of a requirements gathering initiative
prior to a technology project. The readiness assessment results provide the organisation
with information that was previously not available. Knowing a significant project with
numerous stakeholders was on the horizon, the challenge faced by the State is how to
prepare for and transform organisational behaviour to support sustainable change.
The goal of the proposed technology initiative being evaluated is to continue building
an efficient administrative framework of common, integrated systems, processes, and
strategies to achieve administrative excellence and efficiency. The intention is to make

132 G.S. Napier et al.
these changes without sacrificing work product quality and with no reduction of
individual job satisfaction; in fact, expectations are that job satisfaction could actually
improve due to an expected improvement in the overall business process.
The State of Vermont engaged Ciber, Inc. to perform an organisational change
readiness assessment focused on the State’s readiness to move forward with a state-wide
technology and business process optimisation initiative. This approach was at a high
enough level of understanding that it did not affect or bias the people being surveyed.
Ciber, Inc. worked side-by side with the State’s change management manager to
undertake an assessment that considered the stability of business processes, competing
projects, change saturation, resource availability, and required knowledge.
3 Conceptual framework
This paper presents a case on assessing organisational change readiness from the view
point of assessment first, project start-up and implementation second. This appears to be,
and is, the most obvious logical approach, however, from the authors’ collective
experience, it is the least implemented approach. Our field experience indicates most
transformation initiatives look at technology first, business process improvement, second,
and the people-related issues a dismal last. We introduce the philosophy of change
management as it relates to information technology change and business transformation
in organisations. Then, we introduce the case for the State, followed by the methodology
used for the readiness assessment. We conclude by presenting the key findings,
recommendations, and considerations for other organisations.
Organisational change management (OCM) refers to a planned approach for moving
an organisation’s people and processes in positive directions when faced with a need to
alter well entrenched patterns or behaviours that support conducting business or
providing services (Amborski and O’Rourke, 2012; Banhegyi, 2007; Hiatt and Creasey,
2003; Kotter, 1996). Effective change management includes:
1 assessing an organisation(s) and its leaderships’ capability for change
2 identifying and anticipating people-related risks and concerns
3 gaining buy-in of key stakeholders and leaders for the changes
4 addressing organisation and cultural issues that may impact project success
5 developing targeted approaches to communication
6 building training and support for users at all levels
7 creating a process and approach to guiding individual behaviour throughout the
organisation, both for the project under consideration and for future changes.
Change is a process, not a point in time or a single event. When launching a significant
change initiative, one of the biggest mistakes an organisation can make is to view the
change as an event that happens at a single point in time, such as the ‘go-live’ date of a
new technology system and/or new business process being implemented. The State
recognised an opportunity to create both a structure and culture that embraces change as a

Preparing for transformational change 133
way to conduct business and provide services for constituents. The readiness assessment
was conducted outside of the context of a defined event. If a readiness assessment, such
as the one presented in this case, is conducted with a blind view of what the changes may
be, it can present a ‘pure’ reflection of what the surveyed population really feels about
making changes to their environment, versus surveying the population ‘knowing’ the
changes to come and thereby tainting the data by biasing the readiness survey with
preconceived notions on what life will be like after the changes occur. This readiness
assessment provides two views of the information gathered: unbiased change
expectations and information on the potential effects of change before change begins.
3.1 The organisation
The State of Vermont organisation is intricate. It either delivers or controls services
provided for all of its citizens. Services that are delivered by towns or cities (e.g., local
roads, schools, etc.) are directly funded by the State. The State prides itself on its history
of fostering and demonstrating independence and having a ‘Vermont way’ of conducting
its affairs. The State government is comprised of three branches including six primary
agencies in the executive branch and several independent departments. Although the
Agency of Administration provides the tools and guidelines for common administrative
functions, financial reporting, and employee compensation, each entity has a fair degree
of autonomy. There are very few business processes that are truly enterprise-wide. For
example, all bills are paid via the enterprise resource planning (ERP) system, but the
mechanism by which invoices are received or who enters or approves a payment is
decided by each operating entity.
The State has embarked on a technology transformation journey as part of an ongoing
investment in its use of ERP for administrative functions. It is clear the State understands
ERP projects are complex ‘business transformation’ projects that require organisations to
re-engineer their current business processes in order to leverage the capabilities inherent
in an ERP system. These systems are built on a ‘best business practice’ approach, so
when implemented, long-practiced business procedures may need to be changed. In ERP
implementations the software is usually not altered. The way business is performed is
based on and integrated into the software, not the other way around. Customising
software to fit business processes and needs is antiquated thinking in technology enabled,
solution based and business optimisation projects.
In the spring of 2013, the State retired a legacy time and expense system. Literally,
overnight all 9,700 State employees transitioned from a paper-based time and expense
capture process to entering data online directly into the ERP system. This project was
deemed a success as the legacy system was retired and employee compensation and
reimbursement has continued seamlessly with imperceptible resistance from the affected
employees.
In addition to the State’s experience with large-scale ERP projects similar to the one
above, it is also clear that the State has staff and leadership who have demonstrated to be
both dedicated and resourceful on many other large state-wide projects. They developed
work processes that enabled them to get the results they needed, often in challenging,
resource constrained environments. The cornerstone of the time and expense process
change management effort was a network of readiness coordinators (often called change
agents in change literature). This group served as the conduit of information from the
project team to employee stakeholders. Readiness coordinators were generally self-

134 G.S. Napier et al.
selected with the approval of their department heads. This project was the first large-scale
project with dedicated change management resources. Two State change management
leads in partnership with a consultant on the implementation partner’s team led this effort
and the network.
Now, the State of Vermont is steadily moving toward another implementation of
more current technologies. With the goal of being able to support constituents by
providing the kind of access and functionality expected in today’s increasingly
responsive regulatory, business, and technology environments. The implementation will
ultimately impact work performed, decision-making, and information available across the
State. A substantial project of this nature necessitates a careful approach to effective
change management. Guiding people and organisations through change is a task that is
both essential and delicate. Perhaps nowhere is this more challenging than within
government institutions, where it is not uncommon to find employees who may equate
their value to the institution as being tied in significant ways to their understanding of the
history of ‘how things have always been done’ as well as the knowledge of how to work
with current processes and players. These people in reality are ‘process historians’. This
can mean that even small changes in business processes or technology tools are a threat
to an individuals’ sense of value or competence. This consequence can result in resistance
and distraction as people feel a lack of confidence, or security, related to their work
environment or, as with some older members of the workforce, a fear of being able to
properly use and understand the new technology. Once resistance is entrenched and if left
unaddressed, it can play out in many ways, none of which bode well for project success.
Managing this risk makes change management an essential tool to support any project
and is in fact a critical success factor. True success would equate to go-live being a
non-event.
Implementing powerful technologies offers great possibilities that are attractive to the
highest levels of State decision-makers. Technology offers an enormous opportunity for
governments to do their jobs with more efficiency and transparency. Efforts range from
adopting best-practice business processes offering gains in efficiency, applying new and
better controls, to greater reliability and enhanced support for decision-making and
analytics. To take advantage of these system-enabled process improvement opportunities
the State must consider how the institution does business. Responsibilities of specific
work groups and individuals are all brought into question. In reality, individuals in
specific job roles will likely find themselves in need of new skill sets or facing new job
accountability and responsibility. This ‘new stuff’ is not typically an individual’s
personal choice nor does the individual necessarily see a personal benefit, potentially
leading to resistance. Overcoming such resistance or concern is one of the main reasons
change management is included as a part of effective projects (Amborski and O'Rourke,
2012; Foster et al., 2004; Kotter and Cohen, 2012). One of the biggest challenges for
change leaders is to find the ‘what’s in it for me’ (WIIFM) for the various stakeholder
groups and then a compelling way to communicate the personal and professional impact.
The State’s challenge is how to leverage its experience with the previous successful
ERP implementation while facing all of the same organisational challenges. The concept
of change management is recognised as a critical component for success, but continues
on many projects to lack an enterprise-wide focus and approach. Change management
dynamics continue to be secondary to the technology being implemented.

Preparing for transformational change 135
4 Methodology
The project was initiated by the State of Vermont. The State wished to take a holistic
view as they began planning for their next business transformation and enterprise-wide
technology implementation. In addition to gathering information for decisions regarding
technology solutions the State also wanted to anticipate the organisational change
requirements needed for success.
The researchers for this project included two consulting resources along with one
primary, and one supplemental resource from the State. This OCM team was provided
with working space at the State offices in Vermont where they were onsite between
January and May of 2015. These working arrangements allowed for both formal and
casual interactions with management and users from the State. The data collected
comprised observation notes, in-depth interviews, and readiness survey results. A five-
step approach was used to gather information for the Organisational Change Readiness
Assessment deliverable.
4.1 Meeting with OCM team to develop understanding and approach
The process began with problem formulation and potential issue identification. A series
of collaborative meetings between the researchers and change managers from the
sponsoring State agencies resulted in developing an initial approach for assessing the
organisation’s readiness for change. Subsequent meetings were conducted to collectively
identify the primary stakeholders, their particular concerns, and potential benefits and
constraints. Along with these discussions and interactions with the State, both business
and academic literatures were reviewed for applicability to the assessment strategy.
4.2 Conduct in-person leadership interviews
In-depth interviews were conducted with 22 members of the State’s leadership team.
Individuals interviewed included both executive sponsors, members of the management
team, and other organisational leaders representing six State agencies. Utilising a semi-
structured interview protocol, the researchers were able to gather information in specific
categories as well as create a space where managers were able to discuss strengths,
concerns, and sources of pride for their respective organisation.
4.3 Prepare and conduct online change readiness survey
The change readiness survey was developed to look at the State’s overall readiness for
change. It was not designed to evaluate any specific project or initiative. The readiness
survey is comprised of 13 sections of 48 statements in total in addition to open-ended
questions to capture qualitative feedback on the wider and deeper issues under
investigation. The readiness survey was structured using a five-point Likert-type scale
ranging from ‘1’ (strongly agree) to ‘5’ (strongly disagree).
Distribution of the readiness survey was by means of an e-mail inviting employees to
participate. The readiness survey was distributed to key contacts in the organisation who
then distributed it widely within their agencies and departments. A follow-up progress
reminder e-mail was sent out three days after the original e-mail. The readiness survey
response is shown in Table 1.

136 G.S. Napier et al.
Table 1 Readiness survey response
Metrics Results
Participants Due to the distribution methods used there was no way to determine how many
employees received the survey. All statistics are based on all 9,645 payroll
State employees potentially receiving the survey.
Responses 2,850 (30% of total employees on the payroll)
Comments 1,096 individual comments were recorded and analysed.
Source: Napier et al. (2015)
4.4 Incorporate learning from technical and functional workshops
Parallel to the assessment effort, there were technical and functional software discovery
workshops. The researchers attended these workshops where possible throughout the
course of the project. Findings and observations from these workshops were incorporated
into the overall readiness assessment. Some of the findings from these workshops
included known and predicted business process changes and organisational risks. For
example, key project members were often unable to commit the required time to the
project due to work obligations or competing projects. This was observed for both
leadership and team members. Another example is the exposed complexity of project
costing business processes that increased the challenge of gathering all requirements.
4.5 Analyse, document, and present results.
The volume of data collected was substantial. The qualitative data was comprised of over
500 comments from the leadership interviews and over 1,000 comments from the
readiness survey. The raw data files were transcribed into a common format in order to
maintain consistency and allow for importing into a qualitative data analysis tool. The
next step was immersion into the data. Comments were read, and re-read in detail to
insure complete familiarity with the content and to gain an initial understanding of the
themes within the text. All comments were coded, grouped into categories and analysed,
and if needed recoded.
The outcome of the coding process supported the creation of categories that captured
the key aspects of the change readiness dimensions in the raw data. The categories
created represent the most important themes to support assessing readiness for the
project. Figure 1 shows the change readiness dimensions that were used to classify and
code all of the comments.
Quantitative data from the online interviews was analysed in two ways. First, survey
questions were structured using a five-point Likert scale and were mapped to the change
readiness dimensions in Figure 1, enabling built in data analysis through the online
survey tool. Second, data was analysed using heat map data visualisation techniques. A
heat map is a data visualisation that uses colour to represent data values in a two-
dimensional image. This type of visual aggregation allowed the researchers to view large

Preparing for transformational change 137
amounts of data looking for relevance, anomalies and trends. Trends or patterns in both
columns and rows become evident because of the use of colour. Areas of interest can then
be explored by revealing the question set or survey participant. Several heat map
groupings were analysed such as employee level and agency. Figure 2 shows a subset of
the heat map data sorted by agency.
Figure 1 Change readiness dimensions

138 G.S. Napier et al.
Figure 2 Subset of heat map results (see online version for colours)
5 Findings
The findings from this project, and eventually leading to this paper, are both interesting
and somewhat complex. The data is interesting because of the broad human landscape it
covers. From a job responsibility perspective, the data includes a far larger sample size
than anticipated and ranges from entry-level employee to Commissioner (Agency,
Department or Division Head) for the many areas surveyed. The statistically significant
survey response provided confidence in the results. Furthermore, the data allowed the
State to see the distinct differences between the various employee groups and what was
unique. Each group demonstrated different ‘change needs’ or restated, expressed a
distinct perspective on ‘WIIFM’. Organisational size can cloud or distort the findings and
serve as a distraction preventing visibility into the significant differences in employee
change needs by organisational or job position. This fuels the challenge of assessing
change readiness concerns, as a single approach may not fit the diversity of
organisational perspectives. The extremely high participation rate leads to stronger and
more distinct results and conclusions. It also makes analysis of the data difficult due to
the sheer volume of information.
The results of the data analysis revealed two key areas of interest for the State. First,
were the known, but not proven, differences between the various State agencies regarding
their readiness to accept both changes in technology and changes in business process.
These differences had always been suspected and discussed but never proven with real
data. The readiness survey confirmed this understanding and revealed even more insights.
There is a ‘business maturity level’ in the various agencies and when plotted reveals a
‘continuum’ much like any other maturity model. This could be the case for many
reasons; however, the team felt that this was mostly due to the autonomy that was given
each agency to manage its own affairs and often, its own processes. One of the State’s
goals for this readiness assessment and the follow-on implementation project is to drive
standardised business processes across all State agencies. This would create a number of

Preparing for transformational change 139
economies of scale for the State but, as the data revealed, may be more difficult than the
State previously thought.
The second key area of interest is how organisational position or job level relates to
both change acceptance and desire to drive change for making both business process and
technology improvements. Again, this is often a presumption about organisations and the
people within them. The readiness assessment allowed the State to gather enough data to
really understand the many dimensions that influence this.
A State government, not unlike any private sector company, is a complex microcosm
of technology, business processes, and people. There are also unique aspects of
government, like appointed positions, worker longevity, election cycles, etc. The State
has the opportunity to utilise this data to support and structure an effective change
management effort for the upcoming ERP implementation project. Because of this
readiness assessment the State will be better positioned to prepare its change agents,
workers, managers, and leadership through targeted communications and a targeted
change management focus. A focused change management effort will not only help them
accept the changes that are required for the new system and business process
transformation, but may build a desire in the State workers for a movement toward that of
continuous improvement.
6 Implications
This study has identified a number of pertinent implications for organisations considering
major technology transformations. First, the findings offer insight into the importance of
accessing organisational change readiness prior to a major technology implementation.
This can help organisations understand how to engage employees in the change process,
tasks and activities. In fact, ensuring organisational involvement and commitment to
change is critical.
Second, organisational factors play a dynamic role in determining the outcome of
organisational change. Emphasis has been placed on the importance of understanding the
history of organisational change efforts when planning any new transformation efforts
(Pettigrew et al., 1992). In this organisation examples of successful changes included
detailed planning and significant communication and involvement of key stakeholders.
Success was also contingent on providing training when new skills were required.
Negative experiences were linked with poor communications, hasty implementation,
insufficient planning, and lack of involvement from key stakeholders. These findings are
consistent with other studies finding that ownership, effective communication, and
training were all critical for successful implementation of transformational change
(Robey et al., 2002; Tichy, 1982; van der Voet, 2014).
7 Discussion
This study provides a framework for a theory-based measure of organisational readiness
for change, referred to as organisational readiness for change (ORC). Showing how an
organisation can be evaluated in order to make recommendations to prepare for
large-scale organisational change, well in advance of the actual start of the transformation
project. Engaging in this type of an assessment is fascinating from both the academic and

140 G.S. Napier et al.
consulting practitioner perspective. It is equally fascinating from the experienced
business manager’s perspective. Managers through the years have been responsible for
the integration of the wonderment of technology advancement, business process
optimisation, and the unpredictable behaviours of the humans that must work with all
these innovations. Given a very short time frame for the readiness assessment and the
large amount of accumulated data the client-consultant collaboration was critical to
successful analysis and presentation of the organisational learning. While some of the
change readiness factors outlined in the resulting readiness assessment may seem far
removed from technology impacts, in the end, they are the very core of what will make a
positive implementation outcome a reality for the State of Vermont.
The State faces many challenges as it contemplates the results of the readiness
assessment. Although the State successfully implemented transformative technology
leveraging a network of change agents in 2013, the spectrum of results and data
surrounding support for change indicate that cultural obstacles still exist. Change
management is recognised as an important concept and the people side of change is often
quoted, by State leaders, as critical to success. However, the process and tools to support
change management across the enterprise are not institutionalised. There are pockets of
success that are obvious when the survey heat map is sorted by Agency. Many of these
successful pockets have a strong leader who is able to motivate and mobilise the
workforce. Strength is based on the person being a leader, not on a person being a good
manager and relies on a well-developed practice of change management techniques.
Leadership takes the change techniques and not only implements and supports them, but
encourages people to think beyond the normal boundaries of their responsibility.
The readiness assessment results support the necessity to focus on the people who are
essential to ensure adoption of the impacts associated with the pending technology
project. The qualitative comments and feedback reflect what the management team
expected. The strength of this readiness assessment is the non-debatable quantitative
results. The management team is confident of its ability to successfully execute
large-scale technology projects, but the data shows that there is work to be done on the
human side. The readiness assessment sends a clear signal that the task facing leadership
is to clarify and communicate the objectives of the technology transformation efforts.
Readiness assessment participants demonstrated a lack of understanding about direction,
unclear expectations, and concern that input from the ‘right’ people would be missed.
There is no argument that communication is critical to change efforts, however leadership
must invest the effort to define objectives and success.
Looking ahead, the State is in the preliminary stages of designing a team to address
change for the upcoming project. This team will be the founding members of the change
agent network and will form before formal project kick off. Members will represent a
variety of entities. Entities with strong change profiles, based on assessment results, will
be recruited. The change management team is not a steering committee nor will it govern
project execution. However, it will serve to monitor and influence the overlap of people,
process, and technology. The objectives of the team will be to structure and develop
change activities from project planning through post go-live. The concept is to integrate
change activities effectively into the project structure and in such a way that assures that
change resources are allocated appropriately.
Despite potential challenges, the State has the opportunity to leverage the practices of
successful projects upon which to build an effective approach to change management.
There is executive level sponsorship; there are management team members dedicated to a

Preparing for transformational change 141
project’s success who exhibit strong leadership; there are team members with a good
understanding of their business areas as well as a growing understanding of the potential
that an integrated system can offer; and there is strong technical staff committed to
project realisation. With focused and structured attention; explicit roles, responsibilities,
and expectations; and a solid approach to project management, methodology and
leadership, the State has the foundation in place for a successful implementation.
8 Conclusions
The State of Vermont recognised the need to understand their readiness for change;
however, few specific methodological approaches had been proposed. This study
proposed the use of a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods including
in-person interviews, and a readiness survey with a wide population of employees. The
use of multiple methods ensured that a wide range of data and respondents were included.
Data from this combination of methods identified barriers and facilitators for change. The
findings support development of an organisational change strategy involving all levels of
the organisation.
Organisational change transcends the implementation of any application, technology,
or business process. Change involves moving the people, processes, and culture that are
the core of the overall organisation in new directions, perhaps in directions no one
foresaw or in directions that would be difficult or impossible to implement. Change also
involves driving adoption of these new behaviours, processes, and technologies by the
true end users of the system, the people who actually breathe life into the day-to-day
business processes and system usage. This appreciation will always be a more
challenging task than any project that focuses on technology alone.
References
Ackerman-Anderson, L.S. and Anderson, D. (2010) The Change Leader's Roadmap: How To
Navigate Your Organization’s Transformation, Kindle [online] https://www.amazon.com
doi: D01-0112495-7033800 (accessed 27 July 2015).
Amborski, D.J. and O’Rourke, J.V. (2012) Practitioner’s Guide To Change Management [online]
https://itunes.apple.com/us/book database (accessed 26 July 2015).
Armenakis, A.A., Harris, S.G. and Mossholder, K.W. (1993) ‘Creating readiness for organizational
change’, Human Relations, Vol. 46, No. 6, pp.681–703, doi: 10.1177/001872679304600601.
Banhegyi, S.G. (2007) The Art and Science of Change [online] https://books.google.com/books?
id=IZhyKIUBc40C (accessed 11 June 2015).
Carton, F. and Adam, F. (2003) ‘The organizational impact of enterprise resource planning
systems: changes in the balance of power in multi-national companies’, Paper presented
at the European Conference on Information Technology Evaluation, Madrid, Spain,
25–26 September.
Foster, S., Hawking, P. and Stein, A. (2004) ‘Change management: the forgotten critical success
factor in enterprise wide system implementations’, ACIS 2004 Proceedings, Paper 31 [online]
http://aisel.aisnet.org/acis2004/31 (accessed 29 July 2015).
Hawking, P., Stein, A. and Foster, S. (2004) ‘Revisiting ERP systems: benefit realization’,
Paper presented at the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Big Island, HI
USA, 5–8 January.

142 G.S. Napier et al.
Hiatt, J. and Creasey, T.J. (2003) Change Management: The People Side of Change, Prosci
Research, Loveland, CO USA.
Ke, W. and Wei, K. (2005) ‘Organizational culture and leadership in ERP implementation’,
PACIS 2005 Proceedings, Paper 35 [online] http://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2005/35
(accessed 29 July 2015).
Kotter, J.P. (1996) Leading Change [online] http://www.amazon.com doi: D01-8911819-3069053
(accessed 22 May 2015).
Kotter, J.P. and Cohen, D.S. (2012) The Heart of Change: Real-Life Stories of How People Change
Their Organizations [online] http://www.amazon.com database doi:D01-3031381-1219417
(accessed 29 August 2015).
Napier, G.S., Amborski, D.J. and Pesek, V. (2015) ‘Organizational readiness for transformational
change’, in Sardana, G.D. and Thatchenkery, T. (Eds.): Managing Complex Organizational
Change: Action-oriented Approaches for Sustaining Positive Interventions, pp.238–250,
Bloomsbury Publishing, New Delhi, India.
Pettigrew, A., Ferlie, E. and McKee, L. (1992) ‘Shaping strategic change – the case of the NHS in
the 1980s’, Public Money & Management, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp.27–31, doi: 10.1080/
09540969209387719.
Robey, D., Ross, J. and Boudreau, M. (2002) ‘Learning to implement enterprise systems: an
exploratory study of dialects of change’, Journal of Management Information Systems,
Vol. 19, No. 1, p.17.
Scaccia, J.P., Cook, B.S., Lamont, A., Wandersman, A., Castellow, J., Katz, J. et al. (2015) ‘A
practical implimentation science heuristic for organizational readiness; R=MC2’, Journal of
Community Psychology, Vol. 43, No. 4, pp.484–501, doi: 10.1002/jcop.21698.
Shea, C.M., Jacobs, S., Esserman, D.A., Bruce, K. and Weiner, B.J. (2014)
‘Organizational readiness for implementing change: a psychometric
assessment of a new measure’, Implementation Science, Vol. 9, No. 14, pp.1–15 [online]
http://implementationscience.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1748-5908-9-7
(accessed 2 June 2015).
Southern, N.L. (2005) ‘Creating cultures of collaboration that thrive on diversity: a transforming
perspective of building collaborative capital’, in Beyerlein, M. (Ed.): Advances in the Study of
Interdisiplinary Work Teams, Vol. II, Elsevier, Denton, TX USA.
Southern, N.L. (2006) ‘Creating a culture of collaboration in city government’, OD Practitioner,
Vol. 38, No. 4, pp.13–18.
Stein, A., Hawking, P. and Foster, S. (2003) ‘ERP post implementation: a new journey’, ACIS 2003
Proceedings, Paper 71 [online] http://aisel.aisnet.org/acis2003/71 (accessed 3 July 2015).
Tichy, N.M. (1982) ‘Managing change strategically: the technical, political, and cultural keys’,
Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp.59–80, doi: 10.1016/0090-2616(82)90005-5.
van der Voet, J. (2014) ‘The effectiveness and specificity of change management in a public
organization: transformational leadership and a bureaucratic organizational structure’,
European Management Journal, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp.373–382, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.emj.2013.10.001 (accessed 29 April 2015).
Wei, H. and Wang, E. (2004) ‘Understanding organizational change and misfits of enterprise
resource planning system: a stage view of context, content, and process analysis’, PACIS
2004 Proceedings, Paper 134 [online] http://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2004/134 (accessed
13 July 2015).