It first mentions the changes that have been occurring in the IT business. For example: from make to buy<\/strong>. Secondly, users’ understanding of what technology can deliver increase, they are demanding more power in determining their own computerized objectives. Third, organizations are experiencing multiple attempts at radical transformation. [90’s research documents] Later in, some were saying that IT specialists need to become better organizational change agent and this for three reasons:<\/p>\n “In short, it is difficult to imagine any IT effort that does not fundamentally involve change at some level<\/strong> […]” Positive or Negative Change patterns:<\/strong><\/p>\n It is key to have the right transition team<\/strong> that is able to map any change and road map them in a proper way. It is as important to have a sense of “employees readiness to change index”<\/strong> in an organization.<\/p>\n If we look at the integrated framework of change<\/strong> suggested by Sigal in 1996:<\/p>\n – Individual response to change: <\/strong>“Change is not always resisted, apathy can be more difficult to work with” What is the conclusion of the study? Find it here:<\/strong> The change within the IT world is not unique. But each modification requires an organizational perspective vision, no way to avoid this and no way to avoid the management of the change<\/a>, but nerveless<\/strong> a technical success is needed first!
\n
\nThe emphasis is shifting from technical to business and IT management. IT professionals are to function more like change agent. As mentioned in this post<\/a>,\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n
\n“We concur with Foug\u00c3\u00a8re (1991) and Markus and Benjamin (1996) that IT specialists are in the right position to facilitate organizational change. However, if they do not properly understand change, they cannot be effective in helping<\/strong> others through this often difficult and arduous process”.<\/p>\n\n
![\"ChangeIntegratedFramework_Siegal\"](\"http:\/\/embargo.ch\/AllBlog\/wp-content\/ChangeIntegratedFramework_Siegal.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n
\n– General Nature of change:<\/strong> Evolutionary or revolutionary?
\n– Planning change:<\/strong> “The importance of surfacing dissatisfaction with the present state and articulating a desired future”
\n– Managing the people side of change:<\/strong> How to communicate on the transition, what psychological issues? “Allowing people to disengage from and grieve the loss of present state”
\n– Managing the organization side of change:<\/strong> “The contribution of slogans and symbols to establishing credibility and importance; the need to reduce barriers and restraints to achieving goals rather than applying more pressure”
\n– Evaluating change:<\/strong> “Recognizing that complaints can often be a sign of progress and positive energy”; “The importance of providing feedback to people regarding progress made”<\/p>\n
\n![\"ChangeConclusions\"](\"http:\/\/embargo.ch\/AllBlog\/wp-content\/ChangeConclusions.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n
\nFinally, I wonder how deep is the same understanding amongst other professional sectors?<\/p>\n