Page 192 - Managing Change in Organizations

CarnCh11v3.qxd 3/30/07 4:28 PM Page 175

Introduction
of this will be explored later; at this stage I identify some of the issues the book
will address.
At the core of any major change programme is the process of strategy formation.
Some say strategic choice or strategy formulation, but that implies a conscious as
well as rational process of choice, whereas in many organizations that would be an
incomplete view of how strategy ‘emerges’. Here I follow the widely accepted view
expressed in Mintzberg (1994). This sees strategy as emerging without necessarily
being wholly or even partly the outcome of explicit strategic planning activities.
This does not mean that it is necessarily irrational, nor that processes of choice may
not be involved. Strategy may emerge from a succession of ‘choices’, some explicit
some implicit (i.e. in people’s behaviour) and therefore directly a consequence of the
corporate culture (see below).
In a period of major change there is more likely to be an explicit process of
strategy formation. The argument here is that such a process will be more effec-
tive if careful diagnosis is involved. Here we argue that the ‘acid test’ of strategy
is implementation. Preparation for implementation will obviously be more effec-
tive if we have identified the ‘stakeholders’ involved in the changes, assessed the
impact of change on them and involved them in diagnosis and planning where
possible and appropriate (not always possible, see below). Moreover, careful diag-
nosis provides a partial assessment of the capability of the organization for change
and improvement.
Furthermore, diagnosis of the capability for change is enhanced if we also
carry out competitive ‘benchmarking’. Measuring your own organization on
dimensions such as marketing capability, logistics, operations people and orga-
nizational issues can and will lead to the generation of ideas about strengths and
weaknesses and how performance can be improved. But will it mean that we can
readily identify the maximum potential? One way of doing so is through the
technique of competitive benchmarking. Two definitions offered are:
The continuous process of measuring products, services and practices against
the toughest competitors or those companies recognised as industry leaders.
An ongoing process of measuring and improving products, services and prac-

tices against the best that can be identified worldwide.
Milborrow, 1993
Benchmarking therefore involves a comparative audit of your own and one or more
organizations. For example, a US white-goods manufacturer was concerned about
high distribution cost. It compared the design of its North American distribution
facilities and the fact that all return journeys were empty with the performance of
freight forwarding companies. This has led the manufacturer to introduce changes
which have achieved dramatic reductions in distribution costs, not least by utilizing
route planning to ensure that many of the ‘empty’ return journeys are ‘filled’
through contracting to carry goods inward to its own plants.
A Coopers and Lybrand survey of 105 board members drawn from The Times
Top 1000 companies draws the following conclusions:
■ 67 per cent of the companies used benchmarking;
■ 82 per cent of such programmes were seen as successful;

175