Scope of change: the scope of change involves aspects such as “how work is done and by whom, who makes decisions and controls resources, what activities and resources have status and value, what the company should be and how it should be seen (Ancona, et. al., 2005, p. M8-15).” Scope can be either radical which involves fundamental changes in the organization or incremental, which are local. In this case, the Wichita change was incremental, meaning that all changes were done at the local level, specific to the needs of the Wichita location.
Pacing: the pacing of change involves whether it is punctuated, meaning there is a clear beginning and end, or continuous, meaning it proceeds over time and leads to another change. In this case, the pacing of change was continuous, as it proceeded over time. Initially, there may have been a desire to have a clear beginning and end, but the process did take longer than planned. As mentioned in the textbook, continuous change involves ongoing experimentation and improvement. An example of this is the problem chat. Initially, no one showed up to the chats, but over time, more employees found use of it. They were able to evolve the problem chat to include actual fixes to issues mentioned. Another example is with the team-building. While the problem chats fixed issues, there was still some tension between groups. To fix this, they instituted and experimented with softball games, which ended up being a huge success.
Source: the source of change is whether it is driven by top management (top-down) or initiated further down the organization (bottom-up). In this case, I believe that the source of change was from the bottom-up. Although it was identified by top management needed to change, it ended up being the employees who directed what needed to be changed, and how much of a priority it was. This was established through the use of SPITS teams that took problems identified by employees in problem chats and institute solutions from a group of cross-functional employees.
Process: the process of change involves whether the change is planned or emergent, meaning that “the change initiative starts with no explicit map or how it should proceed, but develops over time as one action leads to another (Ancona, et. al., 2005, p. M8-16).” The initiative started off as planned, with Jimenez knowing that productivity and morale needed to be increased at this specific location. However, once she went in, there was no specific outline for what needed to be done. Instead, Wichita was successful because the team “rolled with the punches,” letting one successful initiative lead to the next.
Why was the initiative successful at Wichita? Identify at least 3 reasons for its success
One of the reasons for the success at Wichita was the creation of monthly problem chats and SPITS, which were ad hoc groups of cross-functional employees put together to fix issues that were identified at monthly problem chats. One of the main issues identified by Jimenez was that management and labor did not get along, creating friction which decreased morale and productivity. However, once the problem chats were initiated, the workers started to realize that if they worked together they would be able to fix their problems. Additionally, SPITS lent to success because it involved all groups of employees, who each had their own skill, and had them working together to increase productivity. One last bonus of this initiative was that employees realized that management was acting on issues that they said they would fix. This leads to trust among the employees, which helps to increase their morale and productivity as well.
Another reason for the success was Jiminez’s decision to make David Keller the project leader of...