Page 286 - Managing Change in Organizations

CarnCh14v3.qxd 3/30/07 4:32 PM Page 269

Programmes of change
pace of change was ultimately determined by demand from consultants. The
original plans were doubled in year one and the roll-out from Europe to the rest
of the world was dramatically accelerated. Would this have happened without
the transparency of process, level of engagement and connectivity and so on?
Thus we are beginning to see a model of change architecture emerging. Before we
proceed, let us look at another issue of importance in planning change programmes.
How should we balance centralized and project-changed change against local
management? How should we balance leadership from the top with approaches
to change relying on the drive from customer-facing staff?
I set out the arguments in Figure 14.5.

Central management
The position vis-à-vis central management may be summarized as follows.
Advantages

■ Scale economies.
■ Development of a critical mass of skills.
■ Standardization.
Disadvantages

■ Lack of flexibility.
■ Undermines business unit control of overheads.
■ Business units may be unresponsive to change.

Strategic
management
of change

Vision and leadership
Group-wide
architectures
High cost to group
Unresponsive business Scale User control
unit ownership?
Economies Ownership Variable standards and
competence
Business unit control Standards Responsiveness
of overhead costs
Critical Centres of Reinvention of wheels?
mass of
Inflexible excellence
skills
Integration?
Strategic
control
Centralized
Local management
project-managed Synergy and of change
change leverage

Figure 14.5 Strategic management of change
269