Advertisement

A Case Study Using Participative System Dynamics Modeling in the Implementation of a Sensitive Change Project

Abstract

The application of system dynamics modeling has proven useful in exploratory organizational interventions because it supports learning, alignment of mental models, group decision-making and the creation of commitment. Consequently, system dynamics has contributed to the formulation of a number of strategic initiatives in corporate settings. The initial question being investigated in this dissertation is: is it purposeful to apply system dynamics modeling in the implementation of strategic initiatives?287 The research is mainly based on discussions of literature, but is also complemented by a case study in the action research tradition with dual focus on the implementation of planned change as well as knowledge development.288

Keywords

Business Unit Location Strategy System Dynamic Modeling Case Study Research Critical Success Factor 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 288.
    For definitions of action research, see Cummings, Thomas G. and Christopher G. Worley: Organizational Development and Change, Ohio, 2001, p. 23.Google Scholar
  2. 289.
    Voss, Chris, Nikos Tsikriktsis, and Mark Frohlich: “Case research in operations management”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 22, No. 2, 2002, p. 198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 290.
    This fits well with the quote from Andersen, David F.; George P. Richardson and Jac A. M. Vennix: “Group model building: adding more science to the craft”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 13, No. 2, 1997, p. 196: “case studies are only suitable to generate hypotheses, not to test them rigorously.”Google Scholar
  4. 291.
    Stake, Robert E.: The Art of Case Study Research, Thousand Oaks, 1995, pp. 4–5, argues that a good instrumental case study not necessarily needs to examine a typical case, as an unusual case helps illustrate matters often overlooked in typical cases. Furthermore, he argues that even when designing a collection of cases, representation is often difficult to defend.Google Scholar
  5. 292.
    See Eisenhardt, Kathleen M.: “Building Theories from Case Study Research”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14, No. 4, 1989, pp. 532–550; and Leonard-Barton, Dorothy: “A Dual Methodology for Case Studies: Synergistic use of a Longitudinal Single Site with Replicated Multiple Sites”, Organizational Science, Vol. 1, No. 3, 1990, pp. 248–266. It should be noted, that even though the present dissertation includes only one case study, it indirectly benefits from a larger number of case studies from the group model building literature, as many of these have elements of a change management focus.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 293.
    See also discussion on exploratory case studies, Yin, Robert K.: Case study Research, 3rd edition, Thousand Oaks, 2003, p. 23.Google Scholar
  7. 294.
    Denscombe, Martyn: The Good Research Guide for small-scale social research projects, Philadelphia, 2nd edition, 2003, p. 30.Google Scholar
  8. 296.
    Yin, Robert K.: Case study Research, 3rd edition, Thousand Oaks, 2003, p. 28, emphasizes the importance of theory development as a part of case study design, regardless of whether the purpose of the case study is to develop or test theories.Google Scholar
  9. 297.
    Schein, Edgar H.: Organisationspsykologi, Danish translation, Herning, 1990, p. 253.Google Scholar
  10. 298.
    Anderson, Linda A. and Dean Anderson: “Awake at the Wheel: Moving beyond Change Management to Conscious Change Leadership”, OD Practitioner, Vol. 33, No. 3, 2001, p. 45. See also Roberto, Michael and Lynne Levesque: “The Art of Making Change Stick”, MIT Sloan Management Review, Summer 2005, Vol. 46, No. 4, Summer 2005, p. 56, where modeling is relevant with regards to what they call chartering and learning.Google Scholar
  11. 300.
    Roberto, Michael and Lynne Levesque: “The Art of Making Change Stick”, MIT Sloan Management Review, Summer 2005, Vol. 46, No. 4, Summer 2005, pp. 55–56, describe intervention planning (although calling it chartering). In Koningswieset, Roswita and Alexander Exner: Systemische Intervention, Stuttgart, 1998, it is throughout the book discussed how intervention planning can be seen as creating an overall architecture and design of the intervention, including selection of relevant techniques.Google Scholar
  12. 301.
    Flood, Robert L.: Solving Problem Solving, 1995, p. 20, places ‘organizational politics’ as one of the four key dimensions to take into consideration in a whole organizational system view, the three others being organizational processes, design and culture. Borum, Finn: Strategier for organisationsændringer, Copenhagen, 1995, pp. 79–92, offers a discussion on politics in change processes.Google Scholar
  13. 302.
    For discussions on “Employee Involvement”, see both Cummings, Thomas G. and Christopher G. Worley: Organizational Development and Change, Ohio, 2001, p. 317; and Thun, Jörn-Henrik, Peter M. Milling, and Uwe Schwellbach: “The Impact of Total Employee Involvement on Time-based Manufacturing”, in “What Really Matters in Operations Management”, Proceedings of the European Operations Management Association, 8th International Annual Conference, 2001, pp. 133–135.Google Scholar
  14. 303.
    For implementation actions, focus is typical on the practical adjustments of business processes and organizational design with single-loop orientation (result orientation) rather than double-loop orientation (process orientation), see Borum, Finn: Strategier for organisationsændringer, Copenhagen, 1995, p. 21 and p. 37. Although, having the implementation plan including procedures for review and corrective actions, the scene will be set for later double-loop learning. The implementation plan must take into consideration all four organizational dimensions (processes, design, culture and politics) as described Flood, Robert L.: Solving Problem Solving, 1995, p. 20.Google Scholar
  15. 304.
    Stake, Robert E.: The Art of Case Study Research, Thousand Oaks, 1995, p. 4, recommends to “pick cases which are easy to get to and hospitable to our inquiry.”Google Scholar
  16. 306.
    Roberto, Michael and Lynne Levesque: “The Art of Making Change Stick”, MIT Sloan Management Review, Summer 2005, Vol. 46, No. 4, Summer 2005, p. 53, define strategic initiatives as “corporate programs aimed at creating new business processes or transforming existing ones to accomplish major goals, such as enhancing productivity or improving customer service.” The new location strategy has major impact on both R&D processes, delivery processes, and sales support processes as well as the company’s risk profile, currency spread, and organizational culture elements, which is why it was perceived as a major strategic initiative in the company.Google Scholar
  17. 307.
    Perlitz, Manfred: Internationales Management, 5th edition, Stuttgart, 2004, p. 72, discusses factors for trade between high-cost and low-cost countries. These factors are also relevant for decisions on distribution of employment.Google Scholar
  18. 309.
    Snabe, Birgitte, Andreas Größler, and Peter M. Milling: “Policies and Politics of Establishing R&D Capacity in Low-Cost Locations”, Tagungsband, GWS-Tagung, Greifswald, in print, 2006, focus especially on the political challenges in the case study.Google Scholar
  19. 310.
    Barlas, Yaman: “Formal aspects of model validity and validation in system dynamics”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 12, No. 3, 1996, pp. 183–210; and Forrester, Jay W. and Peter Senge: “Tests for Building Confidence in System Dynamics Models”, in Legasto, Augusto A., Jay W. Forrester und James M. Lyneis (eds.), TIMS Studies in the Management Sciences, Vol. 14, Amsterdam, 1980, pp. 209–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 311.
    Forrester, Jay W. and Peter Senge: “Tests for Building Confidence in System Dynamics Models, 1980, p. 210.Google Scholar
  21. 312.
    Forrester, Jay W.: Principles of Systems, Cambridge, 1968, chapter 3, p. 4.Google Scholar
  22. 313.
    Rockart, John F.: “Chief executives define their own data needs”, Harvard Business Review, March–April 1979, pp. 81–93. For a discussion on the usage of critical success factors, see also Snabe, Birgitte and Jakob F. Ølgaard: Informationsstrategi, Master Thesis at The Institute of Mathematical Statistics and Operations Research, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, 1992, pp. 25–30.Google Scholar
  23. 314.
    See Sterman, John D.: Business Dynamics, Boston, 2000, p. 491. Sterman operates with only two levels in his promotion chain, with employees leaving both levels. The location strategy model operates with 3 and 4 levels, with employees only leaving the latest stage as this reflects the historical data well. Other examples of system dynamics models of aging chains include Martinez, Ignacio J. and Luis F Luna: “The Dynamics of Best Practices: A Structural Approach”, at CD-ROM of Proceedings, System Dynamics Conference, System Dynamics Society, 2001, which operates with three levels of practitioners: junior, intermediate, and advanced.Google Scholar
  24. 317.
    In Sterman, John D.: Business Dynamics, Boston, 2000, p. 491, the “two-level promotion chain” has a growth factor related to the total number of employees, but in the location strategy model it makes more sense to base the growth on fully productive FTE’s, due to ramp-up limitations (ratio between experienced staff and new staff).Google Scholar
  25. 321.
    Sterman, John D.: Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World, Boston, 2000, p. 491.Google Scholar
  26. 322.
    See Forrester, Jay W.: Principles of Systems, Cambridge, 1968, chapter 5, p. 10.Google Scholar
  27. 323.
    The “worse-before-better” effect is widely recognized in change management literature. The effect is also illustrated by the means of system dynamics models, e.g. Repenning, Nelson P. and John D. Sterman: Nobody Ever Gets Credit for Fixing Problems that Never Happened: Creating and Sustaining Process Improvement”, California Management Review, Vol.43, No.4, Summer 2001, p. 74.Google Scholar
  28. 325.
    Huz, Steven, David F. Andersen, George P. Richardsen and Roger Boothroyd: “A framework for evaluating systems thinking interventions: an experimental approach to mental health system change”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 13, No. 2, 1997, pp. 149–169; Rouwette, Etiënne: Group model building as mutual persuasion, The Netherlands, 2003, pp. 68–95. The framework of Rouwette partly is based upon the work of Huz.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 326.
    Yin, Robert K.: Case study Research, 3rd edition, Thousand Oaks, 2003, pp. 93–96, discusses the problems of participant observations. Kvale, Steinar: InterViews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing, Thousand Oaks, 1996, pp. 235–252, discusses the reliability and validity of interviews.Google Scholar
  30. 327.
    For discussions on self-reinforcing of mental models, see Bakken, Bent E.: Learning and Transfer of Understanding in Dynamics Decision Environments, Boston, 1993. pp. 29–30; Argyris, Chris: Reasoning, Learning, and Action — Individual and Organizational, San Francisco, 1982, p. 39.Google Scholar
  31. 328.
    Denscombe, Martyn: The Good Research Guide for small-scale social research projects, Philadelphia, 2nd edition, 2003, chapter 9.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag | GWV Fachverlage GmbH, Wiesbaden 2007

Personalised recommendations