Reasons Behind Poor Implementation: Precursor To Success...

Copyright UCT

REASONS BEHIND POOR IMPLEMENTATION: PRECURSOR TO SUCCESS OF PERFORMANCE

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMMES

Mpumelelo C. Mabula

A dissertation submitted to The Graduate School of Business, University of Cape Town,

in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the Executive MBA degree.

Cape Town, March 2006

UCT GSB

Embargo

Copyright UCT

- ii -

UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS

19 March 2006

PLAGIARISM DECLARATION (1) I know that plagiarism is wrong. Plagiarism is to use another’s work and pretend that it is your

own. (2) I have used a recognised convention for citation and referencing. Each significant contribution

and quotation from the works of other people has been attributed, cited and referenced. (3) I certify that this submission is all my own work. (4) I have not allowed and will not allow anyone to copy this essay with the intention of passing it

off as his or her own work. Signature:……………………………………………………….Date:………………………………. Student No.: MBLMPU001

MBLMPU001 March 2006

Copyright UCT

- iii -

ACRONYMS This is a list of acronyms that have been used in this document. Board The Board of Directors of the CDC

BSC Balanced Scorecard

BU Business Unit of the CDC

CDC The Coega Development Corporation (Pty) Ltd

CEO Chief Executive Officer of the CDC

CLD Causal Loop Diagram

E3 Type III Error

EM Executive Manager

EU European Union

EXMA Executive Management Committee of the CDC

FDI Foreign Direct Investors

IDZ Industrial Development Zone

QMS Quality Management System

PbN Painting by Numbers type of a project

PIP Performance Improvement Programme

PM Project Manager

PMS Performance Management System

QMS Quality Management System

RMC Risk Management Committee

SAST Strategic Assumption Surfacing and Testing

TQM Total Quality Management

VSM Viable Systems Methodology


Copyright UCT

- iv -

GLOSSARY This section provides definitions of key concepts or terms that I used in this document. I used a D4 framework to achieve this. “A D4 definition includes connotative, denotative, functional, and operational definitions.” Connotative definition provides common characteristics possessed by all things denoted by the concept or term. Denotative definition provides examples or instances of the concept or term. Functional definition defines the functions the thing performs. Operational definition indicates actions (operations, activities, procedures) that the concept or term symbolically implies.” (EMBA 6 Class Handout for recording Learning Logs)

CONCEPT CONNOTATIVE DENOTATIVE FUNCTIONAL DEFINITION

OPERATIONAL DEFINITION

Implementation Implementation is a process of changing a system from a current state to a desired future state, this being done by introducing something new and/or taking something out of a system being changed.

An example of implementation is institutionalisation of quality management principles in an organisation.

The purpose is to take an action of improving the status quo, changing the current undesirable state to a more desirable state.

It means delivering those things that a person has been assigned or requested to do to achieve the objectives of the organisation.

Requisite knowledge

A state of having reflected and had insight on something, enabling an informed action to be undertaken based on information gathered.

An example would be an ability of an ICT person to address a computer problem using ICT knowledge.

The purpose is to be able to carry out one’s duties as expected successfully.

It means acquiring and applying knowledge that would assist in improving one’s effectiveness in executing his/her tasks.

Quality of leadership

A state of possessing integrity, humility, just, confidence builder, dependability, knowledgeable, and being visionary.

An example of quality leadership is the one that was displayed by Mr Nelson Mandela during his tenure as a president of the republic.

The purpose is to ensure that the person who is a leader provides guidance to others, doing so in manner that is desirable to others.

It means demonstrating the ability to hear the unspoken word, encouraging, and guiding people in carrying out their work.

Planning Process of organising thoughts, looking at what may be required in the future, identifying resource requirements, success factors and constraints leading into a workable and successful action.

An example of a planning process is preparing to propose a marriage to a beloved one.

The purpose is to ensure success in undertaking an action to achieve some objectives.

It means setting aside some time to brainstorm and to identify things that would be required to roll-out a proposed activity also, indicating who is going to do what and when.

Effective Process of conveying An example is an The purpose is to It means identifying


Copyright UCT

- v -

communication a clear message at the right time and in a manner that is understandable both to the conveyor of the message and to the recipient of the message.

advert on Omo. ensure that a message is unambiguous and the necessary action could be carried out by the recipient of the message.

the most appropriate means and media to pass a message, how to express it, what to include in the message, and what tone to use, doing so such that it suites the intended audience.

Discipline of implementation

Internally driven state of conditioning one’s mind, aligning it with his/her actions, and being in a tranquil state within his/her mind, body and soul in achieving something as stipulated by him/her and desirable to others.

An example would be orders carried out by soldiers.

The purpose is to solicit commitment towards doing things in a certain way, ensuring internalisation of better ways of doing things and that such are internalised and are carried out willingly by the person concerned.

It means to consciously decide on how to exert oneself in responding to things that need to be done, ensuring that you co-operate with others, doing the “right” thing consistently.

Monitoring system

Monitoring system is a means by which the targeted objectives for doing something are identified, measured and reported on.

An example of a monitoring system is a Performance Management System.

The purpose is to record and produce performance reports following the execution of some tasks.

It means to identify what needs to be measured, what needs to be achieved, set a system to measure and report on the achievements having a task been carried out.

Focus A way of not allowing other things to take away attention required to complete something else.

An example is the way a lioness behaves when it has spotted a herd of springboks, as it chooses one among the lot and chases it until it either gives up on it or catches it.

The purpose is to concentrate on one thing for a meaningful and reasonable period of time to carry it through.

It means identifying what needs to be done, setting asidetime to do it, and do it without allowing external issues deter your intentions, but taking full note of them.

Enthusiasm in implementation

A state of being in harmony, looking forward to, and getting excitement and fulfilment in what one does, and doing it with great tenacity.

A great teacher who gives up other things to pursue his love of reaching school kids.

The purpose is to find excitement, enjoyment, and willingness to execute an assignment.

It means finding something that is internally driven that will keep you committed and interested in what needs to be done.


Copyright UCT

- vi -

ABSTRACT Implementation is a critical bridge between theory and delivery, which if not crossed, may threaten the long-term sustainability of an organisation. As critical as it is, it remains problematic in most organisations. My organisation, the Coega Development Corporation (CDC) is also not immune to this. If there is concurrence on importance of implementation, the question is: why has the CDC been so poor on implementation? Where is the problem? More so, how could implementation in the CDC be improved in the future? These are the questions that this document seeks to address. The CDC is competing with well known world-class competitors for investments. Being charged with the responsibility of developing and managing the Coega Industrial Development Zone (IDZ), the CDC’s main focus is to ensure that it succeeds in attracting and securing profitable investors, as its customers. It does this in response to the mandate by government whose aim is to ensure that socio-economic issues around country are addressed and that the rate of unemployment is reduced. In developing the Coega IDZ the CDC has to ensure that those objectives are met, as this is the main objective of the IDZ Programme. Being hard pressed to ensure the competitiveness and attractiveness of the Coega IDZ, the CDC needed to improve the value of its offerings to customers. The idea was to address this by implementing a total quality management (TQM) system. However, there was a realisation that the CDC has been poor in implementing a number of performance improvement programmes and other initiatives. Given this problem, the concern was that if this problem persists, the implementation of TQM may not be successful. Failure to implement TQM successfully would deny the CDC an opportunity to improve the quality of its offerings to investors and this would make it difficult to attract them. Failure to secure investors would limit the chances of creating job opportunities and therefore inability to address socio-economic issues – which is the primary objective of the IDZ Programme. Following the research questions posed above, research work was conducted, being based on literature review, case studies, and unstructured interviews. The outcomes of the research indicated that the five main reasons behind poor implementation at the CDC are: poor communication; poor planning; poor leadership on execution; lack of requisite knowledge on implementation; and lack of discipline of implementation. It has been highlighted that if the recommended approaches to addressing these problems were to be implemented, the level of implementation could be improved. Consequently, the concern raised regarding success in implementing TQM would be addressed.


Copyright UCT

- vii -

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I thank my organisation, the Coega Development Corporation for affording me an opportunity to pursue the Executive MBA degree. Their financial support and their pursuance in ensuring continuous improvement by all its members of staff are acknowledged. I thank all my EMBA 6 classmates for their inputs into my managerial development more especially my Study Group Members, Careen Chidester, Karen van der Wath, Krish Vallabhjee, and Stefan Burri. I could work harmoniously with my Group Members and I was therefore able to focus on important issues rather than on group dynamics. The guidance and input from the academic staff of the GSB, the external lecturers, more especially Prof Mike Jackson, and the administrative staff of the GSB is acknowledged. From the academic staff I would mention particularly Dr Ailsa Stewart-Smith and Professor Tom Ryan for their invaluable guidance, assistance, and patience with me throughout my EMBA life. The assistance and guidance from Dr Morné du Plessis, the EMBA 5 student, for the assistance and encouragement he offered when I was preparing this dissertation. I will ever be thankful to my wife, Lydia, for being there for me throughout my endeavours with the EMBA, her support, encouragement, being a study partner, reviewer of some of my work, and a person that I could talk to and debate with some of the EMBA concepts. Because of her understanding the family life was never on the way during this trying but fulfilling period. To my boys, Thabi and Mfundo, I would also thank them for trying very hard to understand why I needed to desert them at times and choose to be in Cape Town, and also for understanding that I could not play with them most the time when they wanted us to. Their inquisitiveness enabled me to reflect and revisit a number of assumptions that I have been making about the meaning of life – with them I got a better appreciation of SAST! For the strength and courage that I so much I needed, that so freely was availed, for even though I had to forge these works under very trying moments, the Almighty was ever there; He was the beacon of hope, that with Him I shall fall not. I thank the Almighty for what He hath given us. With Him we shall prevail!

Ndibulele kakhulu!


Copyright UCT

- viii -

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PLAGIARISM DECLARATION........................................................................................................ ii

ACRONYMS …………………………………………………….……………………………… …iii

GLOSSARY …………….…………………………………………………………………………..iv

ABSTRACT …………………………………………………..…………………………………….vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................................................................ vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................................... viii

1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................1 1.1 Where it all Begun… ............................................................................................................1 1.2 Exclusions and Limitations ..................................................................................................2 1.3 Layout of the Document .......................................................................................................2

2 SETTING THE SCENE ..............................................................................................................4 2.1 The Context of My Work Environment..............................................................................4 2.2 Business of the CDC .............................................................................................................4 2.3 The Contextual Environment of the CDC ..........................................................................5

2.3.1 The competitors ..........................................................................................................5 2.3.2 The social environment...............................................................................................6 2.3.3 The political environment ...........................................................................................6 2.3.4 The economic issues ...................................................................................................7

2.4 The Structure of the CDC ....................................................................................................8 2.5 The CDC’s Stakeholders ....................................................................................................10 2.6 Overview of this Chapter ...................................................................................................11

3 UNDERSTANDING THE APPARENT PRACTICAL PROBLEM.....................................12 3.1 Endeavours to Improve Competitiveness of the CDC.....................................................12 3.2 Putting Some Performance Improvement Programmes Under Spotlight.....................13 3.3 Better Insight into Implementation...................................................................................15

3.3.1 Unravelling the term “Implementation” ...................................................................15 3.3.2 Successful implementation and performance – Is there a distinction? .....................16 3.3.3 Implementation as a process .....................................................................................18 3.3.4 Why care about implementation? .............................................................................19

3.4 Overview of this Chapter ...................................................................................................20

4 CLOSER VIEW OF THE SITUATION ..................................................................................21 4.1 The Need to Identify the Nature of a Problem Being Dealt With...................................21 4.2 The Nature of the Problem Being Dealt With ..................................................................22 4.3 Avoiding the Error of the Third Kind ..............................................................................26

4.3.1 Different types of errors............................................................................................26 4.3.2 Dealing with Type III Error ......................................................................................27

4.4 Tools Used for Viewing an Organisation from Different Perspectives ..........................28 4.4.1 Harold Linstone’s Approach.....................................................................................29 4.4.2 Systems Metaphors ...................................................................................................29 4.4.3 The social paradigms ................................................................................................30


Copyright UCT

- ix -

4.5 Viewing the CDC from Different Perspectives ................................................................30 4.5.1 Lens – Machine Metaphor (Functionalist Paradigm) ...............................................31 4.5.2 Lens – The Viable Systems Methodology ................................................................33 4.5.3 Lens – Emancipatory Paradigm................................................................................35 4.5.4 Lens – Interpretive Paradigm (The culture metaphor)..............................................38 4.5.5 Lens – Personification (Perfectionist).......................................................................39 4.5.6 Integrating Views from Various Lenses ...................................................................40 4.5.7 Confirming the Practical Problem ............................................................................42

4.6 The Concern ........................................................................................................................43 4.6.1 A brief review of the ground covered .......................................................................43 4.6.2 Surfacing the concern ...............................................................................................45 4.6.3 Cost of concern .........................................................................................................45 4.6.4 Relevance of the concern ..........................................................................................49

4.7 Surfacing the Research Question and the Research Problem ........................................49 4.7.1 The research question ...............................................................................................49 4.7.2 The usefulness of the research question....................................................................50

4.8 Stating the Research Problem ...........................................................................................51 4.9 Overview of this Chapter ...................................................................................................51

5 THE RESEARCH ANSWER....................................................................................................52 5.1 Brief Overview of the Process Leading to an Answer .....................................................52 5.2 The Answer to the First Part of the Research Question..................................................52 5.3 The Answer to the Second Part of the Research Question..............................................54

5.3.1 General overview......................................................................................................54 5.3.2 The answer................................................................................................................55 5.3.3 The utility of the answer ...........................................................................................60

6 THE METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH TO RESEARCH...............................................61 6.1 The Paradigm: From an Epistemological Point of View.................................................61

6.1.1 From literature / theory… .........................................................................................61 6.1.2 ….to my paradigm ....................................................................................................62

6.2 The Research Methodology................................................................................................63 6.2.1 The theoretical understanding…...............................................................................63 6.2.2 …and my approach...................................................................................................64

6.3 The Approaches and Methods ...........................................................................................64 6.3.1 Action Research........................................................................................................65 6.3.2 Grounded theory .......................................................................................................66 6.3.3 Participant observant.................................................................................................67 6.3.4 Case studies...............................................................................................................68

6.4 Data Collection....................................................................................................................68 6.5 Theory Development...........................................................................................................69

7 THE RESEARCH ......................................................................................................................71 7.1 Literature Review ...............................................................................................................71

7.1.1 The approach to literature review .............................................................................71 7.1.2 The planning process ................................................................................................71 7.1.3 The role of implementer(s) .......................................................................................73 7.1.4 Process design...........................................................................................................77 7.1.5 Information sharing through effective communication ............................................78 7.1.6 The environment within which implementation takes place ....................................78 7.1.7 The implementation process .....................................................................................82 7.1.8 Monitoring, evaluation and reporting .......................................................................83 7.1.9 Consolidating key issues from the literature.............................................................85


Copyright UCT

- x -

7.2 Case Studies.........................................................................................................................86 7.2.1 The approach adopted on the case studies ................................................................86 7.2.2 Learning from road construction - Painting by Numbers type project .....................88 7.2.3 The Restructuring Process in the CDC – The Quest Project ....................................90 7.2.4 Implementing Balanced Scorecard Approach– The Movie Project..........................91 7.2.5 Getting on with Supply Chain Management – The Fog Project ...............................93 7.2.6 Comparative analysis of the Case Studies ................................................................95

7.3 The Interviews...................................................................................................................100 7.3.1 The approach to unstructured interviews................................................................100 7.3.2 Reporting on unstructured interviews.....................................................................101 7.3.3 Consolidating key issues from the unstructured interviews....................................107 7.3.4 The structured interviews - questionnaires .............................................................108

7.4 Overview of the Chapter ..................................................................................................108

8 SURFACING REASONS TO POOR IMPLEMENTATION ..............................................109 8.1 The General Overview of the Process .............................................................................109 8.2 Arriving at Answer to the First Part of the Research Question ...................................110

9 ENSURING SUSTAINED IMPLEMENTATION ................................................................112 9.1 The Approach....................................................................................................................112 9.2 The Role of Requisite Knowledge....................................................................................113 9.3 Effective Planning in Implementation ............................................................................115 9.4 Effective Communication.................................................................................................117 9.5 The Discipline in Implementation ...................................................................................119 9.6 The Role of Quality Leadership on Implementation .....................................................121

10 FROM THEORY TO PRACTICE.........................................................................................125 10.1 Are we Landing or are we Taking Off? ..........................................................................125 10.2 This is Where I Suggest we Start.....................................................................................125

11 EVALUTAION AND REFLECTIONS..................................................................................127 11.1 Evaluation..........................................................................................................................127

11.1.1 Validity ...................................................................................................................127 11.1.2 Ethics ......................................................................................................................128

11.2 Areas for Further Research .............................................................................................128 11.3 Reflections .........................................................................................................................128

11.3.1 The dilemmas of a researcher .................................................................................128 11.3.2 Paradox between research and implementation......................................................129 11.3.3 The closing note! ....................................................................................................129

REFERENCES...................................................................................................................................130

APPENDIX A: An exhaustive list of CDC’s stakeholders, highlighting their needs from the CDC and the CDC’s from them. .............................................................................................136

APPENDIX B: Viable Systems Diagnosis. ......................................................................................138

APPENDIX C: List of questions asked about observed poor implementation in the CDC – intended to surface the research question. .............................................................................142

APPENDIX D: Identifying methods to be used in the qualitative research. ...............................144


Copyright UCT

- xi -

APPENDIX E: Outcomes of unstructured survey, on the reasons leading to poor implementation of programmes, initiatives in the CDC. ......................................................146

APPENDIX F: Outcomes of a survey, on the reasons leading to poor implementation of programmes, initiatives, etc.....................................................................................................159

APPENDIX G: The ID for Barriers to implementation ................................................................160


Copyright UCT

- 1 -

CHAPTER 1

If you don’t know where you are, you may never know how to get there!

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Where it all Begun…

The CEO of the Coega Development Corporation (CDC) learnt that most organisations that we (at the CDC) are competing with for investments have secured ISO 9000 Quality Management certificates. He regarded this as good practice that needed to be adopted by the CDC to improve its competitiveness. There was also a fear that the Foreign Direct Investors (FDIs) that we were trying to attract as our customers might have problems with our organisation if it did not have the ISO 9000 certificate. Following this, a decision was taken to implement the ISO 9000:1994 quality management system (QMS). As the time went by, some operational related problems started to appear. These included poor service offered by some of the Business Units (BUs) to the others; and telephones not being answered on time. The number of these problems increased with time. This threatened the ability for the CDC to offer quality service to its potential customers (the investors). A concern was then raised about the effectiveness of the implemented ISO 9000 system as it did not appear to be addressing these problems. A decision was taken to review this system and to implement the ISO 9000:2000 system. I was asked to lead the implementation of this system. Having been tasked to implement the ISO:2000 system, I was not quite sure if it was the most appropriate system to address the problems that were encountered. I felt that the most appropriate approach was to assess the nature of the problems needing to be addressed and then look for the most appropriate means of addressing them and not pre-conclude on a particular system. I arranged a workshop to consider some of my concerns. The outcomes of that workshop were that the CDC probably needed to consider adopting the total quality management (TQM) system. While this was happening I observed that the CDC was very poor in implementing things that had been agreed upon. This concern was also shared by others and it was raised in a number of platforms. Despite these pleas, poor implementation of initiatives continued to occur. This also included the very IS0 9000:1994 that was being reviewed. This concerned me a lot because I felt that the implementation of the proposed TQM system would also suffer if things continued the way they were. Failure to implement TQM successfully would have devastating effects both to me as an implementer of that system and also to the organisation. At personal level I would be deemed to have failed and I was not prepared for that as that would affect my image and self-esteem. At organisational level, things that needed to be addressed by implementing TQM would not be achieved

MBLMPU001 Chapter 1 March 2006

Copyright UCT

- 2 -

and the image that the organisation wanted (a world-class investment destination) would not be realised. All this happened at the time when I was registered as an EMBA student at the University of Cape Town (UCT). One of the requirements to complete the EMBA programme was for us to prepare and submit dissertations. I found synergy between the dilemma I had at work and the requirements at school so it was therefore opportune for me to conduct a research in this area. This is what this document is all about. Now, as the title of this dissertation may suggest, I want to understand better why the CDC has been so poor in implementing initiatives in the past. I would be doing this in order to assist the organisation in finding out how it could improve implementation of various performance improvement programmes (PIPs) in the future. This would improve the chances of success in implementing TQM, as it is one of those programmes.

1.2 Exclusions and Limitations

In order to stay focussed on the research problem, I needed to identity areas that I would not be covering. This was also necessitated by the limited time within which I had to conduct this research work.

Considering that a decision had already been taken by top management to implement a quality management system, I will therefore not question the appropriateness of implementing TQM in the CDC but to asses how best to do that. Implementation, as a concept will also not be researched. The focus would be on how it could be carried out successfully. So this is what will not be covered in this research work. The areas that will be covered and how they are arranged in the document will be dealt with in the next section.

1.3 Layout of the Document I tried to present this report following a SCQARE format (Ryan, EMBA 6 Lecture Notes, Systal, Module 4, Reading 1). This report is divided into 11 Chapters. This Chapter, which is the first Chapter, provides a quick overview of where the need for conducting this research came from. It then highlights what will not be covered in this research work. Because I’m dealing with the real live managerial problem that needs to be addressed, I needed to provide the situations or the context of the research. This is done in Chapter 2 where my work environment is presented together with its contextual environment. Chapter 3 zooms into the practical problem, surfacing it. In order to confirm the nature of the practical problem, I needed to look at my work situation from different perspectives.


Copyright UCT

- 3 -

Once the practical problem was confirmed I looked at the concerns associated with what was revealed and that led to the identification of the research question. This is covered in Chapter 4. Following the research question, the research answer was provided in Chapter 5. Chapter 6 onwards provides the Rationale to the research approach. I started off by looking at the research methodology in Chapter 6, and Chapter 7 provides the research itself – covering the literature review, some case studies and interviews that were carried out. Chapters 8 and 9 deal with how the research answers were arrived at. Chapter 10 looks at how the recommended answer could be implemented - from small wins approach. Chapter 11 is then a closing chapter where I presented further evaluation of the process followed in the research and also highlighting areas for further research. This is how this document is structured.


Copyright UCT

- 4 -

CHAPTER 2

2 SETTING THE SCENE

2.1 The Context of My Work Environment

In the late 90s the National Government decided on the Industrial Development Zone (IDZ) programme under its Macro-economic Strategy. In coming up with the IDZ Programme, the Government’s primary objective was to encourage creation of job opportunities; to reduce the rate of unemployment; and to improve the socio-economic status of the country. The development and operation of IDZs is governed by the IDZ Regulations of the Manufacturing Development Act (Act No. 187 of 1993), as amended. An IDZ is a specially designated area that is located adjacent either to an international airport or international harbour. It focuses on attracting investors who manufacture products that are mainly destined for overseas markets, i.e. export-oriented manufacturing. The Government earmarked about six areas around the country that could be developed as IDZs and the Coega IDZ was one of them. The Coega IDZ was designated as an IDZ in 2001 and the Coega Development Corporation (“the CDC”) was awarded the Provisional IDZ Operator’s Permit in 2002 to develop it. This IDZ is located in Port Elizabeth, in the Eastern Cape Province. It lies adjacent to the Port of Ngqurha – a new deepwater port that is being developed by the National Ports Authority. The Coega IDZ covers about 11 000ha of undeveloped land. So these are reasons for the CDC’s existence and what it seeks to achieve in the broader South African context. The business of the CDC will be covered in the next section.

2.2 Business of the CDC

The business of the CDC is captured in its mission statement which is:

“To provide a competitive investment location and a total business solution for Customers, and ensure sustainable economic development.”

The CDC provides the following goods and services as its offerings to investors: (a) Serviced land for development by investors;


Copyright UCT

- 5 -

(b) Utilities that include water, sewerage, electricity, waste management, telecommunication; and

(c) Various services that include security measures, customs platform, assistance with environmental approvals, obtaining work permits, liaison with various government departments for all necessary approvals, training of requisite labour, providing information and some assistance on issues pertaining the quality of life (schools, churches, estate agency, etc).

In providing these services, the CDC’s goal is to be regarded as the preferred location for investments over its competitors. This is captured in its vision as:

“To be the preferred investment destination.” The CDC is targeting both the South African and international investors who are in various industrial sectors. From this and what will be raised under sub-section 2.3.4 (on economic issues) it could be appreciated that there are limited offerings from the CDC. The land is fixed and its price is to a large extent determined by market forces. Therefore the area that the CDC could focus on to increase the value of its offerings is on the services. However, the success of the CDC in attracting the investments and to generate the required revenues would to a large extent be determined by the market forces in its contextual environment. The contextual environment within which the CDC operates will be dealt with in he next section. The main focus will be to highlight the challenges that The CDC has to contend with in the process of developing the Coega IDZ and in attracting investors.

2.3 The Contextual Environment of the CDC

2.3.1 The competitors The CDC has competitors all over the world. Most of them have been in existence far longer than the CDC (e.g. Shannon in Ireland and Jebel Ali in Singapore) and therefore have established brand recognition and a formidable market share. Figure 1 shows the perceived Coega IDZ’s position on the Product Life Cycle curve relative to its competitors. Most of the international competitors offer incentives that are better than those offered by the South African IDZs e.g. free corporate tax rates or assistance with start-up costs. Also they are located closer to their main markets, unlike the Coega IDZ, and this gives them an advantage over the CDC.


Copyright UCT

- 6 -

IntroductoryStage

GrowthStage

MaturityStage Decline Stage

TotalMarketSales

TimeCoega IDZ

LeadingWorld IDZs

SA IDZMarket

Figure 1: Perceived position of the Coega IDZ on the Product Life Cycle Curve.

2.3.2 The social environment According to Stats SA’s March 2005 Labour Force Survey, the rate of unemployment in South Africa is 26,5%. The Eastern Cape’s is 27,0% compared to 17,6% for the Western Cape (which is the lowest) and 32,4% at Limpopo (which is the highest). So as it is, there are high expectations and hopes that the Coega Project will improve this situation. But these hopes are starting to decrease because of the slow rate at which investors are secured. The CDC managed to secure the societal licence to operate and this was achieved through an intensive stakeholder participation process.

2.3.3 The political environment

The CDC is a state-owned enterprise (SOE). It was mandated by government to develop and manage the Coega IDZ. It is through projects such as Coega that the government gains mileage on its endeavours to address unemployment. This becomes evident when the political parties campaign for votes before an election. Therefore the more the project delivers on a meaningful socio-economic growth and creation of jobs, the better the government’s image will be.

The CDC is currently funded by government because at this stage of development it cannot generate revenue that could sustain it. However, there are people who believe that the government is wasting tax payers’ money by


Copyright UCT

- 7 -

investing in projects like Coega. This puts the government under pressure to show meaningful return on this investment. The more the CDC is able to deliver on its mandate, the more relieved the government will be from these pressures. This will also ensure continued political support that the CDC needs. This is critical for securing funding; for political support; and for obtaining government approvals that are required from time to time. While there is visible and meaningful support from other Government Departments, others are still sceptical about the project. Others feel that the government should stop funding the project. Therefore the sooner the CDC manages to secure successful investments, the sooner it will get the financial stability that it requires and relief from the sceptics.

2.3.4 The economic issues

The government decides on the incentives that could be offered by the SOEs. It has long been realised by the CDC that the incentives that are available are inadequate compared to those offered by its major competitors. Some of these competitors offer tax breaks and cover up some of the start up costs. There had been attempts to encourage the government to consider increasing these incentives but the Minister of the Dept of Trade & Industry responded that the government will not be increasing these incentives. Although incentives are not the only determinant in improving the attractiveness of an investment location, they still play a major role as they impact on the overall costs of investment, from a cash flow point of view. The pricing structure of the CDC is influenced by the cost of providing goods and services and also by the total cost of providing utilities (water, electricity, telecoms, etc) to investors. The latter is determined by other entities (e.g. ESKOM, Telkom, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan Municipality - NM3)) and therefore it makes the pricing structure rather inflexible. In a way this makes it difficult for the CDC to adopt the cost leadership strategy fully as it is not in full control of all the major transactional costs. At global level there are negative perceptions about Africa as an investment destination due to perceived poor infrastructure; poor government services; poor corporate governance issues; low skills base; etc. This is confirmed by the fact that Southern Africa gets only 2% (in investment value) of Foreign Direct Investments (FDIs) and this figure is declining (UNCTAD, 2003). Of the growing economies, China is currently getting a better share. This puts the Coega IDZ in a tenuous position.


Copyright UCT

- 8 -

This is the contextual environment within which the CDC operates and the challenges that it has to contend with as it attracts investors. Despite this the CDC has to be successful as a business. So, understanding the business of the CDC (from Section 2.2) and given the challenges in the contextual environment, how is the CDC structured in such a way that it could be responsive to these issues? This is covered in the next section.

2.4 The Structure of the CDC

In working towards delivering on its mandate, the CDC managed to secure about 120 members of staff. These people are located in seven Business Units (BUs). One of these Business Units is the CEO’s Office under which I’m working. These BUs are lead by Executive Managers (EMs). The CDC operates on a fairly flat structure, as shown in organisational structure in Figure 2.

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

3 x Board Sub-committees

CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Board Level

Executive Management Committee Level

Plays leadership role

7 x Business Units (BUs) led by Executive Managers (EMs)

3 x Operations Managers for 3 of the 7 Business Units

Management Level

Plays execution function Managers and Specialists under the 7 BUs

Officers and Personal Assistants Support Staff Level Plays supporting role Office Assistants Figure 2: The organisational structure of the CDC, also indicating various

management levels and primary roles pursued at those levels.


Copyright UCT

- 9 -


The team members of the CDC come from various fields of profession and these include Law, Engineering, Information & Communications Technologies (ICT), Quantity Surveying, Finance (Accounting and Book-keeping), Human Resources, Communications, and Investment Promotion. Their qualification levels also vary ranging from PhD to below matric. This highlights the extent to which the Coega team is diverse. The organisational structure of the CDC is different from its functional structure as the CDC adopted a matrix approach in carrying out its activities. Various clusters/ committees / coordination streams define the matrix. This sought to eliminate silo approach in operations and also to ensure that issues are looked at from different perspectives. Considering the information provided so far, the recursion levels for the CDC are shown in Figure 3, where the CDC is indicated as a system-in-focus, i.e. the system that is the main focus of this research.

RECURSION LEVEL 0

The IDZ Programme

Coega IDZ

East London IDZ

Richards Bay IDZ

RECURSION LEVEL 1

The Coega IDZ / CDC

The CEO’s Office

Corporate Service

Finance

Zone Operations

Safety, Health & Env’t

Enterprise Dev’t

Infrastructure Dev’tRECURSION LEVEL 2

The CEOs Office

Quality Mngnt Systems

Knowledge Mngnt

Strategic Corp Direction

Policy Development

Corp Process Flows

CONTEXTUAL ENVIRONMENT

Figure 3: The recursion levels indicating the CDC as the system-in-focus.

Copyright UCT

- 10 -

So in this section I highlighted the structural arrangement of the CDC. I also located the CDC within its supra-system and indicated its sub-systems. The diversity within the CDC team is also highlighted, suggesting potential difference on how issues may be perceived and appreciated. As the CDC conducts its business it has to interact with and is influenced by its stakeholders. These stakeholders are highlighted in the next section including what they need from the CDC and what the CDC the needs from them.

2.5 The CDC’s Stakeholders From an organisational point of view Hill and Jones (1998) consider stakeholders as individuals or groups that have an interest, claim, or stake in the company, in what it does and how well it performs. From a systems point of view Jackson (2003) considers stakeholders to be any group with an interest in what the system is doing. The CDC has a wide range of stakeholders with different interests or claims against it. A comprehensive list of these is presented as Appendix A. Because this list could be exhaustive, it becomes necessary to identify key stakeholders for specific issues. For the purpose of what needs to be addressed in this research, which is around the aptitude of the CDC on implementation, the key stakeholders are: (a) The CDC personnel - they have to identify, develop, and implement

initiatives/programmes/systems that are necessary to ensure the success and competitiveness of the Coega IDZ;

(b) The Investors – they will benefit from the successful implementation of world-class systems/initiatives that are implemented by the CDC;

(c) The Board – it has to ensure that the CDC performs on its duties and that it succeeds in attracting investors into the Coega IDZ – therefore requires that all the systems/processes/programmes are developed and implemented to meet those objectives;

(d) The Government and relevant authorities – as the main sponsor/funder of the Coega development, it has to ensure that systems are put in place to ensure good corporate governance; that return on its investment is realised; and that the CDC and the investors in the IDZ adhere to the policies and the laws of the country; and

(e) The community and greater society – they are the primary beneficiaries of what the CDC does. If it was not for socio-economic issues probably the government would not have initiated the IDZ Programme.

Therefore these are the key stakeholders that the CDC has to contend with on issues pertaining implementation of various programmes/processes/systems/initiatives.


Copyright UCT

- 11 -

2.6 Overview of this Chapter In summary this chapter I have provided reasons for the CDC’s existence, how it fits into the broader government programmes and the broader needs that it has to satisfy. The contextual environment within which the CDC exists was provided, highlighting the challenges that it faces, therefore requiring that it sharpens its approaches in attracting investors where it was highlighted that meaningful value to customer could be realised through the quality of services offered. Information on how the CDC conducts its business and how it is structured was provided. This highlighted potential structure of information flow – influencing effectiveness and lines of communication. It also highlighted the diversity of personnel. Appreciating all that, the question still remains: what are the issues with implementation process in the CDC? The next chapter therefore pays more attention on implementation process within the CDC.


Copyright UCT

- 12 -

CHAPTER 3

3 UNDERSTANDING THE APPARENT PRACTICAL PROBLEM

“…if we can’t define a problem so that it leads to ethical actions that benefit humankind, then either we haven’t defined or are currently unable to define the problem properly.” ……..Ian Mitroff

In the previous chapter I provided the background to the CDC, what it seeks to achieve, the activities that are carried out and also the issues that it has to contend with as it develops the Coega IDZ and seeks to meet the needs of customers. In this chapter I will look at the operations of the CDC closer (the system-in-focus) with a view to surfacing the practical problem with it.

3.1 Endeavours to Improve Competitiveness of the CDC The CDC considered that its success and long-term sustainability depends on its ability to secure and retain profitable investors. This followed the realisation that the government will not fund it ad infinitum. The CDC also considered that the attractiveness of a particular location as an investment destination is determined by its competitiveness. This is determined by the value attached by the customers to the offerings made by that organisation. The more these offerings satisfy their needs and add value to them, the higher the chances are for attracting and retaining them. One of the main activities carried out by the CDC is the development of systems to operate the Coega IDZ. Most of these systems are focused on internal process and are aimed at improving internal controls (e.g. financial systems, procurement system, various policies, systems to monitor late comers, etc); and those that are intended to ensure operational excellence, (e.g. ICT enterprise-wide platform; QMS; Supply Chain Management; Wellness Programme; Knowledge Management System, etc). Some are focused on the operations in the IDZ and these include Zone Labour Agreement; Customs Operating Platform. At any point in time there are a myriad of these systems that get implemented and others are being revised. This has led to some stating that “the CDC is in love with systems. It’s systems, systems, systems! When are you going to implement all these things and they are confusing us.” One of the people interviewed in this research asked, “Is it really necessary to implement all these things?” While these had been identified as best practices, effectiveness in implementing them has been poor. The fact that the CDC is poor in implementing its plans or strategies has been an ongoing problem. This concern has been raised a number of times in a number of forums. Towards the end of 2004 I made an effort to address this problem but the recommendations and the entire process could not be taken into conclusion because there appeared to be no acceptance of the outcomes of that work and therefore no enthusiasm


Copyright UCT

- 13 -

in ensuring the ownership of some of the processes that needed to be driven to alleviate the problem. (Now the question may be, “if things did not work then how am I hoping to make them different this time?” I guess the first part of my answer to that question would be, “This research work”. If things had gone well then, I would probably be addressing a different topic now!) Despite these shortcomings the CDC continues to identify “new” programmes, plans and strategies for implementation. For instance a decision has been taken to implement the Supply Chain Management programme and also to resuscitate the implementation of the Quality Management System (QMS). The implementation of a QMS has been made my responsibility and its success has been included in my Balanced Scorecard. I used the term “resuscitate” because it’s not the first time for the CDC to attempt this. The inability to obtain the expected results was attributed to poor implementation. In summary, this section highlights the fact that the CDC is poor in implementation. It presents a number of programmes / initiatives / systems that are implemented and some still need to be implemented and what people’s views are about them. But the view that the CDC is poor in implementation is informed by personal observations. In the next session I will be providing information that safeguards being carried away by my own biases.

3.2 Putting Some Performance Improvement Programmes Under Spotlight The way I see the level of implementation within the CDC is likely to differ from other CDC members’ observations. This is the case because our observations are informed by our world views – our Weltanschaaung (Jackson, 2003). In this instance I was concerned about my biases with my observation. I asked myself, “how poor, ‘poor’ is when referring to implementation in the CDC? Does that “poor” warrant a focussed attention? I guess it’s natural to feel this way because Chrisander (2005:2) also raised that “it is nearly impossible to get away from our personal biases”. I addressed this question by looking firstly at what other people had to say about this issue. Secondly, in the following chapter I will use different paradigms to re-look into this issue. For now I will report on the first approach by citing few incidents which reinforced my view: Noting what was said by others: • Jumping a gun a bit, later in this document I will be reporting on interviews that I

conducted recently within the organisation on the level of implementation. All the seven interviewees concurred with the view that the CDC is poor on implementation. (More information on this will be provided in Chapter 5.)

• In the recent strategy session by the Executive Management Committee (EXMA), one of the focus areas for consideration in 2006 was execution. Areas of focus that


Copyright UCT

- 14 -

are brought up in strategy sessions are problematic areas or areas that need particular attention. Therefore the fact that execution was brought up in that session suggests that there was a view that it’s a problematic area needing focussed attention.

• There has been a general concern about the poor responsiveness to the issues brought up by the Risk Management Committee (RMC). In other words, recommendations by the RMC are poorly executed. This is the view of both EXMA and the RMC.

• The Quarterly Reports on Internal Audit highlight a number of systems/programmes that are not meeting their intended objectives (being ineffective) and others as being inadequate. This signals poor implementation because those systems/programmes are in place.

Observing the roll-out of some few programmes/initiatives: • Team building sessions, which are aimed at re-aligning the team and rejuvenating

its spirit - none took place last year and very few in the recent past years and outcomes from all those sessions were never pursued;

• The Balanced Scorecards for monitoring performance – still very subjective, not interlinked or cascading properly from corporate to Business Unit (BU) level and from BU to an individual’s level, not carried out as regularly as was envisaged, not assessing continuous improvement;

• Implementation of the standard formats for various documents – a number of people are still using incorrect formats and the situation is getting worse;

• Stakeholder Management System – mostly re-active, does not cover stakeholder profiling as was originally intended, and is not actively managed from an integrated point of view;

• Use of Customer Relation Management (CRM) tool to manage interactions with potential investors – never really got used effectively;

• Use of various checklists – done sparingly; • The need for resuscitating the ISO 9000 – when implemented first time it tended to

be used as a document control system and as such it never addressed any of its primary objectives;

• Institutionalisation of project charters – this is carried out sparingly in certain Business Units, but generally not done.

• etc, etc. Because the primary objectives of all the programmes/systems stated above were not met, it’s the basis upon which I was of a view that they were poorly implemented and the situation continues to be so. While this exercise is intended to challenge my biasness it is also intended to address the Error of the Third Kind (E3 Error – which will be covered in more detail under Section 4.3). E3 could be experienced if my observations on the implementation patterns at CDC


Copyright UCT

- 15 -

were incorrect where this view could be informed by a certain paradigm through which I saw the CDC. In summary, this section sought to address my biases with a view to avoiding E3. There are a number of incidents that are taking place in the CDC that support this view. Therefore I could conclude that the CDC is poor on implementation. But what do I really mean by implementation? What does “implementation” entail? I will cover this in the next section.

3.3 Better Insight into Implementation Before going further writing about implementation, I saw it necessary to spend some time explaining what it is so that there is common understating of what I’m referring to. The intention is not to research implementation but to get common understanding of what it is.

3.3.1 Unravelling the term “Implementation”

Different definitions on what implementation is have been provided in the literature. The one that I preferred the most is by Kotler (1984: Smit 2003) where he defines implementation as:

“…the process that turns plans into action assignments and ensures that such assignments are executed in a manner that accomplishes the plan’s stated objectives.” (Smit 2003:15).

According to the Oxford Dictionary implementation is defined as “putting something into effect”. Mitchell and Wier (2004:5) define implementation as “the move from an existing state with current outcomes, to a desired future state as defined by a set of new targeted outcomes”. So in a way implementation is associated with change – change from one state to the other. But in order to provide more meaning to that change – so that we do not deal with change for the sake of change, Hill and Jones (1998) talk about strategic change. They define it as “the movement of a company away from its present state towards some desired future state to increase its competitive advantage” (pp 444). Following these definitions, I came up with a consolidated definition of the term implementation which is: ‘implementation is taking an action that is informed by a certain plan whose objectives are to change the current state of an organisation to the desired future state where its competitive advantage would be improved’. In this document I used the terms ‘implementation’ and ‘execution’ synonymously. There is still a problem with these terms because of different connotations that they have to different people. For instance in a strategy workshop that I attended with


Copyright UCT

- 16 -

one of the units of the Eastern Cape Dept of Public Works it was revealed that their mandate is to implement the infrastructure as requested by other government departments. There was confusion with this statement due to its ambiguity. It was not clear whether this included planning, designing and maintaining of that infrastructure or just constructing it. It was clarified later that it included all those. To a contractor this would imply only the actual construction of the said infrastructure. This suggests that it is not appropriate to inform a person to go and implement something without specifying exactly what the required deliverable(s) is (are). Failure to do so leads to dispute whether implementation was carried out successfully. This was experienced recently in the CDC during performance appraisal of one of the managers where the Executive Manager raised that the manager concerned did not perform on some of his tasks as certain things had not been implemented. The manager argued that he had performed according to what was implied when the assignment was handed to him. This issue was resolved through internal arbitration and the manager was afforded the benefit of doubt. Smit (2003) refers to a need to ensure that the “…assignments are executed in a manner that accomplishes the plan’s stated objectives.” In a way this highlights the fact that any modifications could be considered as long as they are not going to compromise the stated objectives of the plans or the stated deliverable(s). In other instances the objective or deliverable may not only be the ‘what’ but also the ‘how’. For instance in the CDC, it is not only the provision of requisite infrastructure that is important but also how that infrastructure is provided. The ‘how’ in this instance requires that socio-economic objectives are met by maximising the number of jobs and also that transformation issues are addressed. This concludes this section, where the definition of the term ‘implementation’ has been provided; the context in which it is used in this dissertation; and a need to avoid ambiguity in its use. Now if one is reported to have performed, does that imply that the implementation process was successful? The distinction between these two is looked at closer in the next section.

3.3.2 Successful implementation and performance – Is there a distinction?

I felt that there is a need to ascertain if there is distinction between successful implementation and performance because these tend to be used interchangeable at times. After reviewing literature on organisational performance, Ouye (1996:2) viewed that “performance must be defined in terms of the goals and objectives of the specific group versus the individual”. This followed the fact that he considered the group, which could either be a department, a Business Unit, or a team as a basic work unit. I would, however, tend to think that a particular work unit would be


Copyright UCT

- 17 -

assigned to carry out a specific work package. It is upon attaining the objectives/deliverables or exceeding the specifications (could be time, cost or quality) of that work package that the work team would be reported to have performed well. Based on the nature of work package, it could be executed by a group of people e.g. implementation of a quality management system or by an individual e.g. development of an implementation plan for a QMS. Ouye (1996:2) further mentioned that “the American Performance and Quality Centre recommends that that performance be defined in terms that are most relevant to the group’s outputs and that a Family of Measures be used.”

Talking about poor implementation at the CDC, one of the interviewees (number A3) mentioned that “poor planning or planning but not proceeding according to plan is another problematic area”. What this implies to me is that people have to execute the plan and in the process of execution they must perform. Therefore people must not perform for the sake of performing. Therefore the order of events is that there is a plan with objectives (the “what”) and specifications (the “how” e.g. doing something within a certain time, achieving certain quality standards, within certain budget). This is now getting to the argument of which of the two actions is better, ‘doing a right thing in a wrong way’ or ‘doing a wrong thing in a right way’? In line with the notion of execution and performance both would be equally wrong! This implies that people have to do right things (follow the plan) in a right way (according to specifications).

Does this suggest or imply dogmatism, rigidity, inflexibility, control freak, tyranny, and total disregard of mindfulness? If so, would that approach survive times where changes are an order of the day as Amidon (2003:20) states, “we live in an era of ‘kaleidoscopic change’. It is not the speed of change of one variable, or the speed of change of multiple variables challenging today’s management executives. It is the compounding effects of the speed of change of multiple variables creating a business landscape in which old traditional policies and practices are not sufficient.” So the answer is, “No”. According to Collins (2001:125) it means “freedom and responsibility within a framework of a highly developed system”. This is what is practiced at Toyota. Toyota is known to be among top performing companies. At Toyota flexibility in rigidity is encouraged (Spear and Bowen, 1999). People at floor level are allowed to come up with innovative ideas of improving their work environment. They have to discuss those ideas with their line managers first – following a rigorous problem-solving process. If those ideas are approved they get codified, communicated and implemented by all. They remain the new execution plan until another greater idea surfaces. The conclusion is that super performance does not necessarily imply great execution as a group could super perform pursuing its own plans rather than the desired corporate goals. It appears that at least performance has to be assessed


Copyright UCT

- 18 -

along Jackson’s (2003) measures of success for some of the sociological paradigms (functionalist and interpretive) and these measures are: (a) Efficiency (= are the minimum resources used in goal seeking?); (b) Efficacy (= do the means employed enable us to realize our goals?); (c) Effectiveness (= are we actually achieving what we want to achieve?); and (d) Elegance (= do the stakeholders find what is proposed tasteful?). Now having understood what implementation is and how it is supposed to be assessed, the question is: what processes inform execution? This is looked into in the next section.

3.3.3 Implementation as a process

In sub-section 3.3.1 I provided the definition of implementation where it is seen as a process. Then because it is a process, it suggests systemic occurrence of events. Nutt (1986, quoted by Lehmann and Richards, 2002) also viewed implementation as a series of transactions rather than a static event. Therefore in this section I want to consider all the activities that are normally carried out leading to the realisation of successful implementation. In order to improve our appreciation of implementation as a process, Hill and Jones (1998) provided a series of distinct steps that should be followed to ensure the success of the change process. This is shown in Figure 4.

Evaluating change

Implementing change

Determining obstacles to

change

Determining a need for change

Figure 4: Stages in the change process (Hill and Jones, 1998). The intention for considering this diagram was that I needed a framework that I could consider as a guide - to focus on, but not limited to - as I proceed with my work. The importance of recognising this process also emphasizes the interconnectivity of these activities where if any of them is not observed may lead to the failure of the entire process of implementation. I only used this approach as a guide not limiting myself from going outside the identified processes if needs be. I modified Figure 4 to emphasize some of the processes that I considered pertinent in the implementation process. This is shown in Figure 5.


Copyright UCT

- 19 -


Figure 5: The processes undertaken leading to implementation. (The shaded boxes in light yellow indicate areas which would be the main focus of this document.)

3.3.4 Why care about implementation?

I consider implementation as converting theory into practice, moving from intangibles to concrete tangibles. To that, talking about the Balance Scorecard, 2GC (2003:1) highlights that “although the theoretical principles are well founded, the practical value of a Balance Scorecard can only be realised if it is successfully implemented. Poor implementation of BSC can result in BSC failing to deliver potential benefits. This could become a burden rather than an asset”. Lehmann and Richards (2002) indicate that ideas and creativity may be abundant, but the implementation thereof is often scarce. Rizzuto (2003:4) reported that based on some research work, “failed implementation is often the source of disappointing technological transitions, therefore implementation can be thought of as the most crucial period to successful adaptation…” Levitt (2002) pointed out that ideas or innovations are useless in themselves, their value is only unlocked when implementation occurs. Pfeffer and Sutton (1999, quoted by Lehmann and Richards (2002) refer to the “knowing-doing gap” when discussing the problems that many managers have with implementation. They state that while most managers have knowledge as to what the best practices in their field are, their implementation thereof is often

Need to address the problem identified

Situation needing to be addressed presents itself

Plans to address the problem made

Process design or redesign

undertaken by implementer(s)

Implementer(s) identified and

appointed

Communication, sharing

information with stakeholders

Continue monitoring and reporting; and start continuous

improvement

Implement the plan and produce

outcomes

Are the jectives of the plan met?

ob

Assess environment within which

implementation will take place

No

Yes

Monitor and report Review

Review

Review

Start

Copyright UCT

- 20 -

problematic. There is a presumption from managers that once correct practices have been learnt they will be implemented. Faull et al (2004:39) also pointed out that, “You can never know in advance that your plan is foolproof. You learn by putting it to the test on the understanding that you will both ‘get things achieved by doing’ and ‘learn by doing’.” Implementation is also one of the building blocks on Charles Handy’s Wheel of Adult Learning (Hutchinson, 1989: EMBA 6 Study Notes, Systal Module 1, Reading 1)). It shows implementation as one of the critical steps to realising results. He further indicates that true learning comes only after reflection on the implementation process. Therefore in summary, implementation is an important transition between theory or wishful thinking and practice; and between theory and realisation of return on investment. As such there is a need to be concerned about implementation otherwise things remain as ideas/concepts/theories that would not move an organisation to the desired future state. And without implementing effective learning, that would ensure repeatability of results, thus enabling continuous improvement, would not be realised. Therefore implementation has a lot of significance.

3.4 Overview of this Chapter

This chapter highlights the fact that the CDC is poor on implementation. It presents a number of programmes / initiatives / systems are implemented, and some still need to be implemented, and other people’s views about them. Implementation was defined – providing a meaning that is used in this document. The importance of considering implementation as an issue that one should be concerned about is also provided. The following Chapter will focus on looking closer at the issue of implementation in the CDC, using different paradigms. This is to abut or refute the observations made under Sections 3.1 and 3.2. The practical concern with the identified practical problem will be dealt with, whereupon the research question and research problem will be surfaced.


Copyright UCT

- 21 -

CHAPTER 4

4 CLOSER VIEW OF THE SITUATION

“What I see may not be what is; What I see may be what existed in my mind long before; But how shall I see what I should be seeing? How shall I know what it is that I see?”

In this chapter I will use different paradigms to re-look at the organisation to establish if there would be any other issues that could be surfaced. Having the practical problem been confirmed I will highlight the concern and indicate how it could cost the CDC. This will be followed by surfacing both the research question and the research problem.

4.1 The Need to Identify the Nature of a Problem Being Dealt With A problematique or a mess is a system of interconnected problems (Sandrock, 2003). Most management problems are regarded as problematiques. Poor implementation of a performance improvement programmes (PIPs), such as TQM, could also be regarded as a problematique. This is the case because it may be affected by and at the same time affecting a myriad of other processes such as the culture of the organisation - as it defines a new way of doing things; structural changes – as some resources have to be deployed to drive it; some systems such as the Performance Management System - as it has to consider ensuring continuous improvement. Due to the interconnectedness of these processes, introducing something new or taking something out of the system would introduce changes in the entire system. Depending upon the nature of those changes, even those brought about by implementing PIPs, as Keating et al (1999) state, could actually bring about unwanted consequences. They call this an “Improvement Paradox”. Therefore although the lack of implementation of initiatives may appear as a straightforward problem, the environment within which this has to take place and interactions with other processes may give rise to a complex problem. But what is the nature of the problem that we are dealing with?

The importance of establishing an answer to this question follows a caution by Zimmerman (2001) that the type of a solution provided has to be equivalent to the type of a problem being solved. Failure to do so will result in the primary problem that needed to be addressed remaining unsolved. Zimmerman (2001) reports a situation where in a board-staff retreat the group that she was coaching learnt that they had been using simple approaches for complex problems and vice versa. This led the group to realise why the staff and the board were at times having different views on how to deal with some problems.


Copyright UCT

- 22 -

So having established a need to define the nature of the problem one is dealing with, the next section actually assesses the nature of the problem that we are dealing with in this research.

4.2 The Nature of the Problem Being Dealt With Different stakeholders will have diverse opinions about the nature of the system they are involved with and about its proper purpose (Jackson, 2003). Given the apparent complexity of the situation that I’m dealing with, the question that I needed to deal with is: what is the nature of the problem that I’m dealing with? Is it a simple or a complex problem? (I’m using the term “problem” to refer to what I observe as poor implementation of initiatives.) I used two different approaches to address this question and these are Michael Jackson’s System of Systems Approach and Ralph Stacey’s Agreement and Certainty Matrix. (A) Michael Jackson’s System of Systems Matrix: According to Jackson (2003) a simple system has few subsystems that are involved in only a small number of highly structured interactions. They tend not to change over time, being relatively unaffected by the independent actions of their parts or by environmental influences. On the other hand Jackson highlights that extremely complex systems can be characterised as having a large number of subsystems that are involved in many more loosely structured interactions, the outcome of which is not predetermined and change over time.

Generally implementation leads to some changes – change from one state to another. In an organisational setting, especially when referring to changes that result from implementation of performance improvement programmes, such changes would impact on other systems or processes. Invariably, these changes would affect more than one person – others being affected directly and others indirectly. For instance the implementation of TQM would require that everybody within the organisation partakes in it. There are about 120 people within the CDC and they come from different backgrounds demographically, academically, and professionally. They are located in seven different Business Units which spread through three different buildings. These people are pursuing different programmes. Tan (1997) raised that most organisations find it hard to install and maintain TQM because of reasons such as large size, diversity and locations of organisations. Therefore these differences stand a chance of complicating implementation of organisation-wide programmes over and above human and interpersonal issues. Different backgrounds would lead to different interpretations on what needs to be done – as our current perceptions about issues are influenced by our past experiences (Hill and McGowan, 1999). It’s these differences that would bring about difficulties in implementation. For example, institutionalisation of project management


Copyright UCT

- 23 -

principles is likely to be appreciated and implemented quicker by those from the built environment than those with legal or financial backgrounds because of prior training. Invariably the need to implement initiatives or performance improvement programmes is necessitated by developments or conditions in the contextual environment. These conditions are ever changing requiring constant modifications of these to keep up or stay ahead of those changes. This necessitates that some changes be effected over a period of time. Due to all these factors I would conclude that the nature of the system that I’m dealing with is complex. Jackson presented a grid where problem contexts could be placed. This is reproduced in Figure 6.

PARTICIPANTS

UNITARY PLURALIST COERCIVE

SIMPLE Hard Systems thinking

Emancipatory Systems thinking

SYST

EM

S

COMPLEX Complexity Theory

Post-modern Systems thinking

Soft

Syst

ems

Appr

oach

es

Figure 6: The Systems of Systems Matrix, highlighting different approaches that could be adopted given the nature of a problem (Jackson, 2003). The red dot shows the location of the problem we are dealing with.

In Figure 6 participants who are defined as being in a unitary relationship have similar values, beliefs, and interests. They share common purpose and are involved in the decision-making process about how to realise the agreed objectives. Those defined as being in a pluralist relationship differ in that, although their basic interests are compatible, they do not share the same values and beliefs. Space needs to be made for debate, or even conflict, to take place. After this they feel that they have been involved in the decision-making process and agree on productive ways forward, at least temporarily, and act accordingly. Coercive groups have few interests in common and, if free to express them, would hold conflicting values and beliefs. Compromise is not possible and so no agreed objectives direct action. Decisions are taken on the basis of who has the most power (Jackson, 2003). Members of staff in the CDC do not share the same values, beliefs, and interests. This is notable on how some of the organisation-wide programmes are implemented. These include poor use of standards proformas when producing corporate documents; the lack of shared views with respect to empowerment issues on procurement; and lack of open


Copyright UCT

- 24 -

and full participation in meetings. Mostly, people would prefer to harbour their views about issues rather than voicing them out, doing so to avoid conflict. From this I would be more inclined towards suggesting that the nature of relationship is pluralist. Following this assessment, the location of the problem being dealt with in Jackson’s matrix of systems is indicated with a red dot in Figure 6 and indicates it as being complex and pluralist and that soft systems methodologies could be used to solve these problems, but not limited to. B) Ralph Stacey’s Agreement and Certainty Matrix Ralph Stacey (Zimmerman, 2001) proposed a method for selecting appropriate management actions in a complex adaptive system based on the degree of certainty and level of agreement on the issue in question as shown in Figure 7. Table 1 Provides a description of items appearing in Figure 7.

Far

from

A

gree

men

t

5 Anarchy Disintegration &

anarchy OR massive avoidance

2 Complicated Political decision-making & control; compromise, negotiation, dominant coalitions

Clo

se to

A

gree

men

t

1 Simple Technically rational decision-making& monitoring form of control

3 Complicated Judgemental decision-making & ideological control; logical incrementation

Close to Certainty Far from Certainty

4 Complex • Garbage-can

decision-making

• Brainstorming & dialectical enquiry

• Intuition

• Muddling through

• Search for error

• Unprogrammable decision-making, “outcomes” rather than solutions

• Identification, development & selection

• Agenda building

Figure 7: Ralph Stacey’s Agreement and Certainty Matrix (Zimmerman, 2001), showing the positioning of the CDC on the continuum.


Copyright UCT

- 25 -

Table 1: Description of terms appearing in Ralph Stacey’s Agreement and Certainty Matrix.

Dimension Description CDC Situation

Close to Certainty

Issues or decisions are close to certainty when cause and effect linkages can be determined. This is usually the case when a very similar issue or decision has been made in the past. One can then extrapolate from past experiences to predict the outcome of an action with a good degree of certainty. In project management this would refer to projects that are referred to as “Painting by Numbers” (Frigenti and Comninos, 1999).

Far from Certainty

At the end of the certainty continuum are decisions that are far from certainty. These situations are often unique or at least new to the decision makers. The cause and effect linkages are not clear. Extrapolating from the past experience is not a good method to predict outcomes in the far from certainty range. In project management this would refer to “fog” type projects.

How certain are we of the outcomes of an implementation process? How clued up are we on what would lead successful implementation of TQM in the CDC? There is no degree of certainty on these issues as it is not clear what would warrant that; how this would affect other programmes in the organisation; and how it would be affected by them in turn (i.e. as a result of linkages). The problem with an implementation process in the CDC is that one cannot foretell how it will turn out to be because some of the issues are hampered by the would-be-implementer and in others by the people who are supposed to co-operate in the implementation. It would also be difficult to anticipate the wide range of effects of implementation, especially when the intended changes are so clearly beneficial and the unintended adverse effects are delayed or occur in other functions or organizations (Keating et al, 1999). However, the CDC is not completely new in the implementation of improvement programmes, therefore the situation could be not be regarded to be at the end of the scale with respect to certainty, although it would be more inclined towards that direction.

Agreement The vertical axis measures the level of agreement about an issue or decision within the group, team or organisation. As it may be expected, the management or leadership function varies depending on the level of agreement surrounding an issue.

This looks at whether there would be a common agreement among the members of staff on the desirability of implementing an initiative in the CDC. Due to the different backgrounds, different world-views and the nature of work being pursued by different individuals, there is almost always high probability that there would be some differences of opinions on the desirability of what needs to be implemented. This difference is likely to lead to different views on how TQM should be implemented (if at all). Despite this situation it is, however, not anticipated that there would be extremists in this regard, as this was not the case when this notion was introduced earlier in the organisation.


Copyright UCT

- 26 -

Due to the nature of issues confronting the CDC, as detailed in Table 1, it is considered that the implementation process of improvement programmes in the CDC lies in the Zone of Complexity – referred to as edge of chaos by others (Zimmerman, 2001).

Combe and Botschen (2004) pointed out that due to factors such as intangibility and perishability, managing quality in service setting is much more challenging than managing quality in product markets. The CDC’s offerings are heavily inclined towards services. Therefore in dealing with the dynamic type of complexity, Combe and Botschen (2004) raise that obvious interventions produce non-obvious consequences and even the same action can produce dramatically different effects over different time horizons. This is tantamount to what Keating et al (1999) caution against where, instead of improving the whole system, an improvement programme actually worsens the whole system. In order to deal with this issue Combe and Botschen (2004) are of a view that to tackle the issue of complexity, multi-paradigm approach has to be adopted. Failure to do so may lead into solving an incorrect problem precisely or solving a problem that does not exist. These are referred to as E3 and E4 Errors, respectively. Jackson (2003) also stated that in tackling wicked problems, problem structuring assumes greater importance than problem-solving using conventional techniques – otherwise Type III Errors surface. Now, how could I ensure that I do not run into these errors? This is dealt in the next section.

4.3 Avoiding the Error of the Third Kind

4.3.1 Different types of errors

When formulating a problem and providing answers to it, there is a need to ensure that the problem formulation process is correct and also that correct answers are provided to addresses those problems. Problem formulation requires that we had correctly observed the situation that gave rise to the stated problem. According to Mitroff (1998, EMBA 6 Lecture Notes, Systal, Module 1, Reading 5) there are four different types of problems that can be encountered. These are: (1) Type I Error - Accepting a hypothesis that was incorrect; (2) Type II Error - Not accepting a hypothesis that was correct; (3) Type III Error - Solving an incorrect problem precisely; and (4) Type V Error - Solving a problem that does not exist. Type I and II Errors pertain to doing given things right (EMBA 6 Lecture Notes, Systal, Module 1, Reading 5). They could be associated with error of judgement. Type III Error (E3) seeks to ask: What are the right things to do? E3 could be a combination of error of judgement and moral issue. E4 could be associated with morality issues. It could occur when people see things that are not there, exaggerating issues or fabricating problems. This is very common with consultants


Copyright UCT

- 27 -

who want to create work for themselves, or managers who want to justify their existence! In this research I am not proving/disproving any hypothesis but seeking to address a problem following observation of a situation. Therefore the first two types of errors do not pose to be a major issue but the last two. The fourth error is a function of my moral judgement and would be looked at closure under Section 7.3. Type III Error will be the main focus at this point.

4.3.2 Dealing with Type III Error In order to avoid E3 I considered the five strategies proposed by Mitroff (1998) and these are indicated in Table 2.

Table 2: Ian Mitroff’s strategies for avoiding Type III Error.

Area to be addressed

(a) Picking the right stakeholders;

(b) Expanding the options;

(c) Phrasing the problem correctly;

(d) Expanding the problem’s boundaries;

(e) Managing paradoxes.

Do I understand the CDC well enough to be in a position to pinpoint what causes poor implementation of performance improvement programmes? Based on my Weltanschaaung, i.e. world-view and the length of service with the CDC I was tempted to say yes. But the fact that I ‘see it to be does not necessarily make it to be’. In other words, simply because of my perspective I could not readily conclude on any particular observation. Mitroff also warns against assuming that the problems of an organisation are obvious and have a single solution (EMBA 6 Lecture Notes, Systal, Module 1, Reading 5). This caution also ensured that I did not get trapped on what is referred to as innate egocentrism (EMBA 6 Lecture Notes, Systal, Module 1, Reading 1). Therefore in order to address this problem I considered multiple perspectives. This is tantamount to Jackson’s (2003) view that the only way we can get near to a view of the whole system is to look at it from as many perspectives as possible.


Copyright UCT

- 28 -

4.4 Viewing an Organisation from Multiple Perspectives

The need to view things from multiple perspectives is informed by the fact that our perspectives are shaped by our values, past experiences, culture which then gives rise to our worldviews (Jackson 2003). Each individual has a different past and would therefore most likely have a slightly or completely different perspective from the next person. The fact that we see what we see does not imply that what we are looking at or hear about is what is/was – unless we subscribe naively to innate egocentrism! Therefore the true picture is brought about by the collective views from different angles or dimensions. It was upon that notion that I found it necessary for me to ensure that I view the organisation from multiple perspectives. In Section 4.2 I established that I’m dealing with a complex problem. Combe and Botschen (2004) urge that as complexity increases, the need for multi-paradigm approach to manage quality becomes more necessary. All complex problems, especially social ones, involve a multiplicity of actors, various scientific/technical disciplines, and various organizations and diverse individuals. In principle, each sees a problem differently and thus generates a distinct perspective on it (EMBA 6 Lecture Notes, Systal, Module 1, Reading 4). But what is a perspective? The word perspective is used to distinguish between how we look at something from what we are looking at (EMBA 6 Lecture Notes, Systal, Module 1, Reading 4) Perspectives are not perceptions but are guides to our perceptions. They influence what we see and how we interpret what we see. They are “eyeglasses” that we put on to see. This is summarised in Figure 8.

Conceptual framework Set of assumptions Set of values Set of ideas

Influences

our actions in situations

Perspective = Influences our

perceptions

Figure 8: How our actions are informed by our perceptions which are informed by

our perspectives (EMBA 6 Lecture Notes, Systal, Module 1, Reading 4). Linstone (1984: EMBA 6 Lecture Notes, Systal, Module 1, Reading 5) raises that socio-technical systems are a primary concern because problems and issues must deal not only with the technological aspect but also with the social and human facets surrounding and interacting with it. Linstone is concerned about the extent to which people generally are boxed in technical perspective (the machine paradigm). He states that, “The world is seen in quantitative terms,…We define quality of life in numerical indicators so that it would be more precise to label it quantity of life.”


Copyright UCT

- 29 -

In undertaking this exercise, I started off by providing means by which this could be done and then applied it in the context of what I needed to achieve in this research work.

4.4.1 Harold Linstone’s Approach

Linstone (1984) notes that in its most general form, a system involves nature, man, society and technology, singly or in the various possible combinations. His view is that multiple perspectives could be achieved by looking at the situation from the three perspectives shown in Figure 9.

Technical (T) Personal (P) Organisational (O)

Figure 9: Three perspectives to be considered to ensure coverage of

multiple perspectives (Linstone, 1984).

• Technical Perspective – The world is seen as structured, boxed in a certain predetermined form, and that it could be expressed quantitatively.

• Organisational Perspective – The world is seen through the view point of

the affected and affecting organisations.

• Personal Perspective - The world is seen through the filter of individual’s eyes and brain. This perspective enables issues such as intuition, charisma, leadership, and self interest to be considered.

4.4.2 Systems Metaphors Jackson (2003) provided metaphors through which organisations could be viewed. He considers that learning to view problem situations through the lens provided by metaphors can help us to be much more creative in recognising problems and the reasons for their existence. Morgan (1997, quoted by Jackson, 2003) raises that while metaphors give us better view of an organisation they are also limited and offer ways of not seeing as well as ways of seeing. The nine metaphors that are


Copyright UCT

- 30 -

highlighted by Morgan are seeing organisations as machines, organisms, brains, flux and transformation, culture, political systems, psychic prisons, instruments of domination, and carnivals. The metaphors are not limited to these as one could choose to use any metaphor that best suites his/her needs given the situation at hand.

4.4.3 The social paradigms Burrell and Morgan (1979, quoted by Jackson, 2003) argue that various approaches to understanding organizations are reducible into four paradigms. The word paradigm is now commonly used to refer to ‘world view’, or the way of seeing things. It is the set of ideas, assumptions and beliefs that shapes and guides the way of seeing the world (Jackson 2003). It offers the best account available of the nature of the ‘reality’ that is being observed. A particular paradigm’s perspective rests on assumptions which are incompatible with those of other paradigms. Therefore what is seen through a particular paradigm cannot be seen through the next. This requires that all paradigms be considered for a better view. The four sociological paradigms that I will be considering are the functionalist paradigm, interpretive paradigm, emancipatory paradigm and post-modernism.

4.5 Viewing the CDC from Different Perspectives In Section 2.7 I stated the notion that the CDC is poor in implementing various initiatives or various PIPs was based on a certain paradigm through which I looked at the CDC. In this section I will use predefined paradigms to do so. The primary idea here is that I should consider all the four social paradigms as the approach to implementation could be affected by these. With respect to lenses, I chose those which I felt would surface the issues better. I reproduced Figure 9 into Figure 10, presenting a set of paradigms and lenses through which I looked at the CDC. Each of the lenses identified in Figure 10 will be considered separately.


Copyright UCT

- 31 -

Machine Metaphor VSM

Functionalist Paradigm

(T)

(O)

Interpretive Paradigm

Emancipatory Paradigm

Emancipatory Paradigm

(P)

Personification

Culture Metaphor

Perfectionist Figure 10: Lenses through which I looked at the CDC to assess the how well implementation of

various initiatives takes place. (Lenses are represented by the oblong-shapes at the end of each chain.)

4.5.1 Lens – Machine Metaphor (Functionalist Paradigm)

I used the machine metaphor as a starting point where I looked at the CDC as a machine. Before doing that the questions that I needed to address were: in what way is the CDC a machine? What are the characteristics of a machine? What are the characteristics of the CDC that match those of a machine? What is the resemblance between the CDC and those identified characteristics? Then having answered these questions, the next question was: what are those things that are pertinent with the CDC as a machine in as far as success in implementing various initiatives is concerned? The CDC should be having a single purpose which is captured as its mandate. There is a defined organizational structure with policies, frameworks and guidelines that are meant to control behaviour. The performance is measured by using a Balanced Scorecard. People are expected to do things as they are told. Most


Copyright UCT

- 32 -

of its operations are routine e.g. arriving at 08h00 and knocking off at 17h00; working from predefined work-stations when in the office. From these it could be concluded that the CDC could be considered as a machine.

Assessment and identification of areas of concern As a machine the CDC is always busy – busy doing something, with some outputs. But from time-to-time the question is: Is it doing things that it should be doing to achieve its primary goal? The answer to this question is not clear because the strategies that were suggested to assess these have not been implemented yet. (These include answering a question: what are those things that the CDC should be doing to achieve its goal? What competencies are required now and in the future to ensure that those goals are met?) The CDC has a clear mandate that defines the reason for its existence. However, it has diversified to some extent pursuing other opportunities (LBMS and CDC Services). Therefore I may not say that it is pursuing a single purpose. Its components are not well aligned to ensure that they pull in the same direction (like a car whose wheels are facing sideways, and with a camber!). So I could say that in itself it’s not single minded about its purpose. (I am aware of the fact that a machine does not have a mind but I used the term “single minded” to highlight concerns about the purposiveness.) The CDC appears not to be pursuing programmes that would improve its efficiency. Various programmes that would improve its efficiency and ensuring efficacy have not been used to their fullest. These include full functionality of various management structures, which include various committees and clusters that are in place. Therefore its “full” potential cannot be reported on concretely because the system to measure its full potential, the Performance Management System (PMS), is not operating the way it should be – most of the measurements are still subjective primarily. As such it is difficult to comment on continuous improvement because of unclear baseline from which to gauge previous performance and the primary problem being an ineffective PMS. Some of the ‘gauges’ have not been used correctly and therefore what is reported may not be quite correct (e.g. the number of jobs created). Because of these, the ultimate product, i.e. offerings to the customers, could not be claimed to be the best. In the end there are concerns about the efficiency and efficacy of the CDC as a machine.

Seriousness of Identified Areas of Concern The seriousness of the identified areas of concern will be assessed via 2x2 matrices.


Copyright UCT

- 33 -

Paradigm

Desirable Undesirable

Many • Poor implementation of strategies

to improve efficiency; • Ineffective PMS.

Dis

crep

anci

es

None / Few

• Inability to ensure efficacy; • Lack of single mindedness about

the purpose of the organisation.

Certainty Low High

Hig

h

• Inability to ensure efficacy; • Lack of single mindedness

about the purpose of the organisation;

• Poor implementation of strategies to improve efficiency;

• Ineffective PMS;

Impa

ct

Low

4.5.2 Lens – The Viable Systems Methodology

The Viable Systems Methodology (VSM) is the work of Stafford Beer (Jackson, 2003). It is based on cybernetics, which is the science of control and communication in the animal and the machine. It is a model that seeks to assess or ensure the viability of a system. Viability in this instance refers to the ability of a system to co-exist with its environment for survival. This requires that the variety or capabilities of the controller of a system be higher than those of the system he/she seeks to control. It requires adequate and balanced communication among the components of a system and between the system and its environment. The CDC, as an organisation, has to be viable within its contextual environment for its long-term sustainability. Communication and some level of control have to be exercised. The question is: does it demonstrate the key features of a viable system sufficiently? And in what way will this impact on the ability to implement initiatives and how does poor implementation affect its viability? Viable Systems Diagnosis An assessment was carried out to assess the viability of the CDC. This assessment is contained as Appendix B.


Copyright UCT

- 34 -

Identified Areas of Concern The main issues of concern that were identified are: (a) Sub-system 1 (SS1) – Some of the strategies that were meant to enhance the

effectiveness of one of the Business Units have not been implemented. These include the use of Business Support Process; developing and pursuing the corporate marketing plan.

(b) Sub-system 2 (SS2) – The main issue was the lack of effective management of serious conflicts that exist in the organisation. The structures that are supposed to be playing a neutral role in ensuring that there is proper coordination and harmonisation are also seen as having their own interests on issues, thus compromising their own effectiveness. These conflicts have given rise to the “us and them” syndrome; mistrust among members of staff; low morale; and resignations.

(c) Sub-system 3 (SS3) – although there is a Performance Management System in place, its effectiveness is of concern. It is still too subjective and is not managed effectively.

(d) Sub-system 4 (SS4) –SS4 could be considered as non-existent. There is no strategic, integrated and holistic planning that takes place to ensure that a strategic approach is adopted as a result the organisation is reactive to things that are presented by its contextual environment. This compromises the pro-activeness of the organisation. Although this has been raised at few times there are no plans in place to address it.

Seriousness of Identified Areas of Concern The seriousness of the identified areas of concern will be assessed via 2x2 matrices;

Paradigm


No

/ Few

• Poor management of conflicts; • Lack of strategies and implementation

of those thereof on monitoring contextual environment;

Dis

crep

anci

es

Man

y

• Unwillingness to pursue some of the strategies to improve effectiveness of operations;

• Ineffective PMS; • Lack of strategic, holistic and

integrated planning.


Copyright UCT

- 35 -

4.5.3 Lens – Emancipatory Paradigm

I used the information in Table 3 to assess the CDC through an emancipatory paradigm. It highlights the features of an emancipatory paradigm and looks at the CDC through those to see how it compares with them. Table 3 reflects what I interpret as an emancipatory system. Table 3: Looking the CDC through an Emancipatory Paradigm. Areas of concern

that would affect implementation of initiatives are highlighted in yellow.

Characteristics of an Emancipatory Paradigm

The CDC

Fairness in development of new policies, strategies and systems:

Consults all the affected stakeholders and solicits their views regarding proposed policy/system;

Consultation takes place to a very limited extent. Policies, new procedures and strategies are crafted and just endorsed by EXMA before consultation with the affected;

Ensures effective communication during consultations, surfacing assumptions leading to certain proposals;

Generally effective communication is one of the biggest problems in the organisation. Even when it occurs there is difficulty in drilling down to issues such as surfacing assumptions for that is construed as challenging the intelligence of the presenter;

Seeks consensus in addressing issues but being informed by utilitarianism;

Consensus goes as far as the top management feels about the issue but occasionally general when views of the support staff are presented it’s not clear what happens to them;

Ensures that policies are balanced not skewed towards addressing the interests of the management only;

Mostly policies are skewed towards addressing the interests of top management, thus making others to feel left out or

Certainty Low High

Hig

h


• Ineffective PMS; • Lack of strategic, holistic and

integrated planning; Im

pact

Low

• Poor management of conflicts; • Lack of strategies and

implementation of those thereof on monitoring contextual environment;


Copyright UCT

- 36 -

victimised;

Undertakes proper change management process, communicates, and assist people in adopting the changes;

Proper change management is lacking. Once a decision is made on something by EXMA, the expectation is for all to implement without question, therefore leading to lot of resistance to change, unsustainable if it is attempted;

Genuinely and continuously reflects on the situation after implementation undertakes double loop assessment and reviews areas that need to be addressed;

Reflection leading to double loop learning does not take place in most instances – if at all. This being limited by the no-existence of proper monitoring systems. In most instances despite the negative results about the situation, e.g. the abolishment of the thirteenth cheque, there is persistence to justify its implementation – thus highlighting potential lack of ability to reframe but to protect images.

Reports on the performance of the system/policy to all, presenting all the information that may assist others in making their own assessment of the situation – for fair judgement of the process;

Mostly, only EXMA receives reports on the performance of the new systems/policies, but even then when EXMA has asked for such a report;

Ensures that all those who stood to benefit from the system do realise those benefits;

Because of poor reflection, reporting and need to justify the implementation it becomes difficult to objectively proclaim on the realisation of the benefits that are due;

General fairness in treating employees:

Subscribes to and is guided by highest moral standards, particularly justice;

Reasonable moral standards are subscribed to but still there is room for improvement;

Addresses situations that are threatened by the lack of fairness and by coercion without favouritism; ensures consistency but being flexible;

Cases are viewed and treated on their own “merits” therefore making it difficult to assess consistency and fairness, with a philosophical justification for deviating from the norm;

Addresses problems brought about by conscious or unconscious discrimination based on sex, race, sexual orientation, age, disability, education levels, etc;

Issues of discrimination are treated with contempt. However, this does not limit people from practising some of these on the sides;

Affords equal opportunity to listening and addressing the needs of all employees;

There is fairly equal opportunity to listen to people’s needs – but the scales are not always balanced;

Ensures that individuals treat each other fairly;

Generally there is a fair treatment among individuals;

Equal support is afforded to all those who are coming up with new initiatives;

Politics normally prevail where general support is afforded, depending upon who introduces the initiative;

Concerned to emancipate oppressed individuals and groups in organisation and society;

Where noted attempts to emancipate the oppressed are made;

Condemns unfair use of power brought about by the positions people occupy

Power and domination is used unfairly based on people’s positions;


Copyright UCT

- 37 -

within the organisation;

Seeks to inculcate a culture that that is ethical and ensures fairness from a justice point of view;

The culture and the policies of the CDC are against unfair treatment of others. This is embellished in the Corporate Value Statement. However, there is no consistency in how these are practiced;

It is suspicious of authority and tries to reveal forms of power and domination that it sees as being illegitimately employed.

Most of the programmes are implemented from authoritarian point of view.

Fairness in dealing with stakeholders:

Recognises the rights of stakeholders; Scarcely goes out to solicit what these are, but they are observed generally;

Ensures fair treatment of stakeholders; Attempts to treat stakeholders fairly but at times lacks professionalism;

Ensuring that the disadvantaged make full contribution to the system design;

The CDC encourages inclusion and work-shopping of ideas before being implemented, being informed by environmental obligations;

Seriousness of Identified Areas of Concern The seriousness of the identified areas of concern will be assessed via 2x2 matrices:

Paradigm


No

/ Few

• Inconsistencies in forcing adherence to prescribed standards;

• Politics playing role w.r.t support afforded to those who come with initiatives;

Dis

crep

anci

es

Man

y

• Inadequate consultation; • Poor communication; • Poor change management; • Poor monitoring limiting feedback

and reflection; Certainty

Low High

Hig

h

• Inconsistencies in forcing adherence to prescribed standards;

• Inadequate consultation; • Poor communication; • Poor change management; • Poor monitoring limiting

feedback and reflection;

Impa

ct

Low

• Politics playing role w.r.t support afforded to those who come with initiatives;


Copyright UCT

- 38 -

4.5.4 Lens – Interpretive Paradigm (The culture metaphor)

In this case I used the culture metaphor to look at the CDC. The comparison between this and how the CDC does things are presented in Table 4:

Table 4: Looking at the CDC through an Interpretive Paradigm, using the

culture metaphor.

Characteristics of culture metaphor The CDC

• Organisations are seen as mini-societies with their own distinctive values, rituals, ideologies, and beliefs;

• The CDC has a distinct culture, and does things the CDC way. Too much debate on issues, lot of emergent strategies, non-integrated and non-holistic planning; and poor implementation are becoming part of the organisational culture;

• The organisation rests in the shared meanings that allow people to behave in organised ways;

• The shared meaning is derived from the corporate objectives, the mission, and the vision. However, certain behaviours cast doubt on the extent to which this is shared.

• It is through interactions between people that organisations take their form and derive their success or failure;

• Interaction is derived from teamwork, coexistence, and these are underlined by the value systems pursued by individuals;

• Managers need to be stewards of corporate culture ensuring that there is sufficient shared ground so that people pull together and damaging long-term conflict is avoided;

• The CEO determines the culture and is assisted by the Executive Managers to inculcate it;

• There is enough freedom of thought to encourage original thinking and innovation.

• People are allowed freedom of expression and to forward their innovative ideas but the extent to which these are taken forward to implementation still poses problems.

Seriousness of Identified Areas of Concern The seriousness of the identified areas of concern will be assessed via 2x2 matrices:


Copyright UCT

- 39 -

Paradigm


No

/ Few

• Limited shared meaning;

Dis

crep

anci

es

Man

y • Non-integrated and non-holistic planning;

• Poor implementation of innovative ideas;

Certainty

Low High

Hig

h

• Limited shared meaning;

• Non-integrated and non-holistic planning;

• Poor implementation of innovative ideas;

Impa

ct

Low

4.5.5 Lens – Personification (Perfectionist)

In deciding on a perfectionist lens I had an idea of an individual who is an extremist and purist. This individual would see things as “wrong or right”; done or not done; and “good or bad”. Assessment and Concerns There are number of initiatives that needed to be implemented in the CDC. It was also explained why these were required by the organisation. Generally there has been no vehement disagreement or opposition on the notion of having these implemented. A list of some of these was presented under Section 3.2 Given the number of programmes that were decided upon and implemented vis-à-vis those that were decided upon and not implemented, the CDC could be considered as poor in implementation. Despite the fact that there may have been reasons behind the observed poor performance, the bottom line is that those initiatives were not implemented at all or poorly implemented. Despite the feeling that the CDC is poor in implementation, there is a lot of work that is done. The thinking is that probably, had the CDC implemented most of these initiatives, it would be reaping better results than it is at the moment. Probably one


Copyright UCT

- 40 -

of the limiting factors is that while there are number of initiatives and systems to be implemented there appears to be lack of holistic and integrated planning that takes place so as to avoid ‘Improvement Paradox’ and also serious competition for resources – especially people’s times. While poor implementation is observed, the effectiveness of the Performance Management System is highly questionable. In the end it becomes very difficult to assess the real performance of the organisation and also to see areas requiring improvement. This is a view from a perfectionist’s eyes. Seriousness of Identified Areas of Concern The seriousness of the identified areas of concern will be assessed via 2x2 matrices:

Paradigm


No

/ Few

Dis

crep

anci

es

Man

y

• Poor implementation of initiatives;

• Poor means of monitoring progress;

• Lack of integrated and holistic planning;

Certainty

Low High

Hig

h

• Poor implementation of initiatives; • Poor means of monitoring

progress; • Lack of holistic and integrated

planning;

Impa

ct

Low

4.5.6 Integrating Views from Various Lenses

In Section 3.2 I stated that when I looked at the CDC I noticed that implementation of a number of performance improvement programmes is fairly poor. The question was then whether or not I was not being misinformed by some “undefined”


Copyright UCT

- 41 -

paradigm through which I was looking at the situation. In order to avoid E3 I needed to re-look at the situation from different perspectives. I looked at the CDC through different lenses that were informed by certain paradigms. 2x2 matrices were then used to assess the severity of the issues that were raised. A summary of those issues is presented in Table 5. Table 5: A summary of issues that were surfaced when the CDC was looked

through various lenses – as those impact on the implementation of initiatives.

Paradigm/Lens Surfaced Issues

Machine Metaphor • Poor implementation of strategies to improve efficiency; • Ineffective Performance Management System; • Lack of strategic, holistic and integrated planning;

The Viable Systems Methodology (VSM)


• Ineffective Performance Management System;

Emancipatory paradigm

• Inadequate consultation; • Poor communication; • Poor change management; • Poor monitoring limiting feedback and reflection;

Interpretive Paradigm (Culture Metaphor)

• Non-integrated and non-holistic planning; • Poor implementation of innovative ideas;

Personification (Perfectionist)

• Poor implementation of initiatives; • Poor means of monitoring progress; • Lack of holistic and integrated planning;

These issues were consolidated as follows: (a) Poor implementation of initiatives; (b) Lack of integrated and holistic planning; (c) Ineffective monitoring system; (d) Poor communication; (e) Poor change management. These outcomes indeed confirm that when the issue of implementation in the CDC is viewed from different perspectives (lenses and paradigms) the issue about poor implementation of initiatives still comes up. This exercise also raised some issues that contribute towards poor implementation. This then gives rise to a practical problem.


Copyright UCT

- 42 -

4.5.7 Confirming the Practical Problem In Chapter 1 I stated that I was mandated to implement a Quality Management System. It was stated in Chapter 2 that this would be the second attempt to do this as the first one (the implementation of the ISO 9000:1994) did not yield the expected results due to poor implementation. A closer look at the history of the organisation and the rate of success in the implementation of other initiatives revealed that the CDC is generally poor in implementing initiatives or performance improvement programmes. By looking at the organisation through different paradigms there are issues that emerged. If these issues continue to occur they will lead to the continued existence of the identified practical problem. These will be dealt with below. When implementing a new programme/initiative, it introduces a change in the system. The changes need to be managed effectively and be “sold” to people for them to have a buy-in. Effective communication is one of the means by which this could be achieved. CDC is poor in communicating effectively. This affects the effectiveness of change management. Because of poor change management people don’t have buy-in on things that need to be implemented and this leads to poor implementation. Proper planning enables the timing and communication of the strategy to be followed to be carried out effectively. The better the planning, which will also include communication strategies, the better the people will understand what needs to be done and plan their own work better from which implementation may be realised. Also the more there is lack of proper planning (being holistic and integrated) the more haphazard the approach would be in introducing emergent strategies. The more this occurs the more difficult it will be to implement strategies or initiatives as people may be lost as to what is more important, given a number of changes taking place an things that need to be implemented all at once. There is a common cliché that “if it’s measured it gets done”. The CDC implemented a Performance Management System. But this system is suffering the general poor implementation of initiatives/programmes and is therefore less effective. The less effective it is, the easier it becomes for people not to implement initiatives, hence poor implementation in the CDC. While the identified issues continue to exist, poor implementation will continue to be experience in the CDC. This is depicted in Figure 11.


Copyright UCT

- 43 -

Figure 11: Drivers of the practical problem which is poor implementation of

programmes.

Effectiveness of communication

Extent of holism and integratedness of planning

Extent of implementing initiatives

Effectiveness of monitoring systems

Effectiveness of change management

4.6 The Concern 4.6.1 A brief review of the ground covered

Before zeroing on the concern, I brought all the material that emerged from the previous chapters and from some sections of this chapter from some together so as to provide some consolidated context. I did this diagrammatically in Figure 12. The need to be satisfied: As a business the CDC needs to be sustainable in the long term. The CDC considered that it is competing for investments with well known developments of a similar nature. It realised that it has to be competitive for it attract investors. With profitable investors secured, sustainable jobs would be created and this would lead to improved socio-economic issues. On the other hand the CDC would also benefit from these investors, by generating revenues. This will contribute towards ensuring the CDC’s long-term sustainability as a business, thereby increase the shareholder value.


Copyright UCT

- 44 -


We are competing in the global village

Improve competitiveness

Improve sustainability = - Incr Revenue - Decr Op. Costs - Incr Productivity

Attract investors

Increase job opportunities

Improve socio-economic issues

Improve quality of offerings

Improve operational excellence

Increase shareholder valueImplement

TQM

Lean thinking

Sweat Assets

Observed general poor implementation of PIPs

desired

Observed

Projected TQM implementation

therefore in order to

How?

by

by

How?

Options to consider

Situation May translate to

Concern

Why?Because

Evidence

• List of PIPs that were poorly executed;

• Comments / complaints by others on poor implementation;

Threatens

Poor change management

Poor communication

Lack of holistic and integrated

planning Ineffective

monitoring system

i.o.t.

i.o.t.

i.o.t.

i.o.t.

CO

NC

ER

N

SIT

UA

TIO

N

NE

ED

TO

BE

SA

TIS

FIE

D

Figure 12: The linkage between the identified need, the problem in the Situation and the Concern about that problem.

i.o.t.

Copyright UCT

- 45 -

4.6.2 Surfacing the concern Following the stated practical problem, which is that the CDC is poor in implementing performance improvement programmes and other initiatives, my concern is that if this problem persists I would not be able to implement TQM successfully however well-designed it may be. I’m assuming that because TQM is a typical performance improvement programme to be implemented in the CDC, it will also be affected by some of the problems that led to poor implementation of other performance improvement programmes in the CDC. As long as factors that give rise to this observed behaviour continue this threat will always be there and it will affect any PIP/initiative. This is shown in Figure 13.

Identifiable issues following

observation of the situation

Projected TQM implementation

or

either

Extent of implementing initiatives/PIPs

Unknown drivers

Figure 13: The cause for being concerned about the potential failure in implementing TQM.

Figure 13 shows that the implementation for TQM could take off the ground but, as with other PIPs, the drive for seeing it through to the intended /desired level may die down with time. Alternatively it may not take off at all, as with the ISO 9000:1994 QMS. The shapes of the curves for other initiatives are different from the projected curve for implementing TQM. This is due to the fact that the former considers observed behaviour of a number of PIPs over time, whereas the latter looks at the behaviour of one PIP. Otherwise the implications are still the same as shown in Figure 12. Failure to implement TQM will have its own repercussions as the problems that led to a need to implement it would get worse with time. Therefore how this will cost the CDC will be covered in the next section.

4.6.3 Cost of concern

Impact on operational excellence One of the intentions for implementing TQM was to align processes and systems within the organisation to improve efficiencies and turnaround time – so as to be


Copyright UCT

- 46 -

responsive to customer needs. If TQM is not implemented successfully within the CDC there will be a loss in the potential for streamlining internal processes and systems. Recently, the CDC nearly lost a contract because of convoluted procurement processes. This necessitated that these processes be reviewed to respond to the needs of the CDC with respect to turnaround time. Implementation of TQM will also provide an opportunity to review the quality of services offered by various management structures (e.g. Procurement Committee, Risk Management Committee, etc) that exist in the organisation. The less the internal operations are streamlined, the lower the chances would be for improving internal customer interactions. Some people feel that they are compromised by other others, thus affecting their performance. The less the internal processes are improved, the lower the chances would be for the improving the quality of the offerings to external customers. Using a machine metaphor, it is unlikely that faulty equipment (e.g. a brick-making machine) would produce a quality product. This would apply to the CDC as well. With faulty internal processes it would be difficult to improve turnaround time. Failure to improve the quality of the offerings will in turn limit the chances of effecting continuous improvement on various processes therefore limiting the chances of learning more from this process with a view to effecting continuous improvement. The failure to achieve continuous improvement would reduce the chances of ongoing successful implementation of TQM. This is presented as a CLD in Figure 14(a).

Figure 14(a): The cost of failure to implement TQM successfully on the improving the operational excellence by the CDC.


Copyright UCT

- 47 -


Impact on Customer Value The failure by the CDC to improve the quality of its offerings would reduce the ability for it to improve the competitiveness of the Coega IDZ. The less competitive the IDZ is, the more difficult it will be for it to attract investors. Currently the CDC is competing with other local and international IDZs, the Nelson Mandela Metro, and other industrial parks around the country. So the investors have a choice of going to these alternative places. With no investors the CDC will not be able to generate revenues and then be sustainable in the long run unless the government continues funding it. However, the latter is unlikely as the government has indicated its unwillingness to fund the project ad infinitum. The less the ability to attract revenues, the less it will be able to provide systems necessary to develop and operate the IDZ because there will be no money to do so. The more this happens, the less the CDC will be capable of providing for PIPs such as TQM. This is shown as Loop 2 in Figure 14(b).

Figure 14(b): The cost of failure to implement TQM successfully on the improving the customer value by the CDC.

Inability to meet the objectives of the IDZ Programme The failure by the CDC to attract investors will reduce its ability to create job opportunities. By investing in the IDZ, investors will provide job opportunities. The less the job opportunities, the less the ability would be for the CDC to improve

Copyright UCT

- 48 -

the socio-economic status of the area. This is one of the major objectives of the IDZ programme. The government is currently supporting the CDC financially because there is a promise that the socio-economic pressures will be alleviated and also that the rate of unemployment will be reduced. It is appreciated that the CDC alone will not eliminate the high rate of unemployment, but it would assist in reducing it. The more this issue is not addressed, the less the government will realise return on its investment in the project. The more this happens, the less the chances would be for the CDC to continue getting both the political and the financial support for the project. The less this support is, the less the CDC’s ability would be to provide the necessary systems and infrastructure to develop and operate the IDZ. As this happens the CDC will be less capable of improving the competitiveness of the IDZ and the situation will keep deteriorating. Loop 3 in Figure 14 (c) demonstrates this.

Figure 14(c): The potential of not meeting the objectives of the IDZ Programme by the CDC if it fails to implement the TQM successfully.

This concludes this section, showing the cost that the CDC will incur if it were not be successful in implementing TQM. Having covered this, the question that follows is how valid was this concern?


Copyright UCT

- 49 -

4.6.4 Relevance of the concern The assessment carried out above, especially the issues revealed by different paradigms, indicates that there are serious issues that need to be addressed within the organisation. There is a very strong trend on poor implementation of various PIP / initiatives. If the issues that were raised were not addressed effectively it would be difficult to see a vibrant and productive organisation into the future. The concern is not necessarily limited to TQM only. It would have a positive effect to other PIPs if addressed. In that instance the benefits to the organisation would even be more because it would realise higher return on its investment in implementing these programme/initiatives. All in all I regarded the concern to be a concern because if I was not concerned about the issues raised, there would be a very little chance for successful implementation of TQM and other PIPs.

4.7 Surfacing the Research Question and the Research Problem 4.7.1 The research question

The fact that the CDC is poor in implementing initiatives, including other performance improvement programmes, was raised as a practical problem. It is not apparent why this is the problem as there is no in-depth investigation that had been carried out in the CDC to understand this problem. Booth et al (2003: 45) pointed out that “if the writer asks no question worth pondering, he/she can offer no focussed answer worth reading.” But asking a question for the sake of asking would not necessarily address this concern either. So following Booth et al’s advice, I asked a number of questions about the observed behaviour and these are presented as Appendix C. I evaluated these questions by selecting only those that ask the ‘how’ and ‘why’. This was done because they seek deeper understanding of issues rather than a superficial answer provided by the who, what, when, and where questions (Booth et al). For instance knowing what causes a certain behaviour would necessitate that a follow-up question on ‘‘why” be asked so as to get a better understanding of the underlying cause that would enable effect management of the situation thereof. I grouped the questions that were left after selecting the how and the why questions into the following five categories of questions (See also Appendix C for more details):


Copyright UCT

- 50 -

(a) Consequential issues; (b) Reasons on fundamentals; (c) Future focus; (d) Assessing the cost of damage; and (e) Others’ experiences. I felt that the most important thing is to focus on the future by selecting questions whose answers would take me to the desired future. So I selected the following questions: • How could we address poor implementation effectively and sustainably in

the future? • How could we improve implementation of initiatives in the future? But I realised that it was equally important to know why we are in the “mess” in which we are in the first place. I raised this so that we could address those as we move forward. In that respect I focussed on this question: Why has implementation been so poor in the past? So the logic was that if I know the reasons behind the current situation I would be able to look for means of addressing them such that I could find a better future. Following that my research questions are: (a) Why has implementation of PIP/initiatives been so poor in the CDC in the

past; and (b) How could the implementation of PIPs be improved (in terms of

effectiveness and sustainability) in the future?

4.7.2 The usefulness of the research question

As I stated above, I could have asked any question about the observed practical problem but how useful or directed would that question be in addressing my concern? In other words, if I were to get answers to these questions, would those address my concern? I could have delayed evaluating this until I get the answers themselves but so much would have been done already by then. So evaluating its usefulness now was a means of avoiding wasted effort. If I understand the root cause(s) to the current practical problem, I would be in a position to assess means by which those could be addressed, thus ensuring better future on implementation. If I find means of improving implementation of PIPs in the future I would be in a position to know better how to improve the implementation of TQM. Following that my concern should fall away. Therefore I conceded that answers to the research problem would have a direct bearing in


Copyright UCT

- 51 -

addressing my concern. I concluded that the research question was useful and therefore worth pursuing to address my concern.

4.8 Stating the Research Problem Given the research questions stated above, I realised that I did not have sufficient information to address them. Then the research problem was for me to find out more about these issues. In order to achieve that I considered that the following would be necessary: (a) Go through the literature to find out why implementation of PIPs is poor; (b) Conduct unstructured interviews with people in the CDC to find out why, in their

opinion, the CDC has been poor in implementing PIP/initiatives in the past; (c) Consider some case studies – based on the real implementation processes at the

CDC to see what I could learn from them in addressing the research question; and (d) Develop a model/theory that could be used for improving implementation in the

future. This suggests that some approach would have to be followed to arrive at the required answer. The methodology that I used in this research work is dealt with in the following Chapter.

4.9 Overview of this Chapter In this chapter I looked at the CDC from different perspectives with a view to concretising the concern. This was achieved, where I surfaced other issues that were drivers to the observed poor implementation. This led to the confirmation of the practical problem after which I raised my concern about the practical problem in the CDC. The cost of this concern to the CDC if nothing were to be done to address the practical problem was highlighted. From this a research question was stated which focussed on understanding the past behaviour that led into poor implementation and also looking into the future. I then finished off by looking at the research problem, stating what I would be doing to address the research question. This will be the focus of the following chapters. Answers that were sought were obtained following a research work. These are presented in the following chapter.


Copyright UCT

- 52 -

CHAPTER 5

An answer is not answer because of what is said after the question, but because what is said addresses what was asked.

5 THE RESEARCH ANSWER In this chapter I will be providing answers to the research questions. Just to recap, what I needed to find out was why the implementation of PIPs has been poor in the CDC. Having that been answered I also needed to find out how the implementation process in the CDC could be improved in the future. Answers to these questions would assist in addressing my concern. My concern was that I would not be able to implement TQM if the rate at which the CDC implements PIPs remains as poor as it is.

5.1 Brief Overview of the Process Leading to an Answer

In order to get answers to these questions I conducted some research work which included literature review on poor implementation. This was followed by unstructured interviews within the CDC, soliciting people’s views on what they felt the reasons were for poor implementation in the organisation and also what could be done to improve the situation. I also considered some case studies which revealed different implementation approaches based on the nature of the project. The detailed account on the process followed to arrive at the research answers is provided under Chapters 8 and 9. In this chapter I will only highlight the outcomes of the research work. The reasons for doing this was that I did not want to leave the research answer till too late, i.e. if it were left till towards the end of this document.

5.2 The Answer to the First Part of the Research Question

The analysis carried out revealed that there were five main reasons that led to poor implementation of PIPs in the CDC and these are presented below. At this stage I’m merely presenting the findings and the main arguments supporting these will be provided under Chapters 8 and 9.

(a) The CDC is very poor in planning execution of PIPs:

The CDC was found to be poor in planning particularly with respect to prioritisation. This is in terms of lack of integrated and holistic planning. If proper planning principles (such as project management principles) are not used, poor implementation is likely to occur. The CDC’s plans change so many times thus limiting people’s ability to focus on specific initiatives. As a result of this they start things and drop them, before they are completed – which results in poor implementation.


Copyright UCT

- 53 -

From a systemic point of view, I could state that the more basic planning principles are not implemented, the poorer the planning process would be. The poorer the planning process is the higher the lack of prioritisation will be. Without a plan it would not be possible to have an oversight of all the plans for proper prioritisation. Lack of prioritisation will lead to multitude of changes, fixing and juggling things around as pressing issues emanate from time to time, requiring attention. The more the plans change, the less one would be able to focus. Lack of focussing would then lead to people starting and stopping things before finishing them as they pursue other new pressing issues. Inevitably, this leads to poor implementation. This could be expressed in a Causal Loop Diagram (CLD) as shown in Figure 15.

Extent of planning Level of

prioritisation

Ability to focus

Extent of starting and

dropping things

Level of implementation

Number of changes on the plans

Figure 15: A CLD highlighting the impact of poor planning on the

level of implementation.

(b) The CDC is poor communication generally: While a number of changes were taking place, communication on the latest plans or focus areas was not as fast and/or effective. People indicated that not knowing the strategic intent and not knowing where an initiative to be implemented fits in the bigger scheme of things, makes them not to give it the necessary attention. People complained that things were imposed unto them which gave rise to resistance to implement them. In some instances some of the initiatives were reported to have been too complex and in some instances there was no communication on what needed to be implemented. This then led to poor implementation.

(c) Lack of requisite knowledge: It was revealed that while the CDC is good with theoretical information it could not convert that information into implementable plans. This is the knowing-acting gap. This gap led to people implementing initiatives poorly. In other instances it was revealed that there was limited knowledge on the subject matter pertaining what needed to be implemented. This led to implementers not being able to execute some of the initiatives.


Copyright UCT

- 54 -

(d) Lack of discipline on implementation: The culture of implementing things sustainably in the CDC was found to be lacking this being affected, among other things the lack of sustained drive to see things through and a number of changes that take place. Where there is no culture of doing something, it becomes impossible to have a discipline of doing it. Discipline on implementation is seen as an inborn drive to start and to see things through. With that discipline lacking, it would not be very possible to implement things effectively.

(e) Poor leadership on implementation:

Top management was found to be very influential on how people do things. In most instances a need to drop one plan and pursue another one has been triggered by them. These changes lead to problems stated in (a) above. On the other hand people are not well conversant on the strategic direction as it has not been well communicated to them. As a result of these factors people tend to pull in different directions as there is lack of shared meaning or singleness of purpose. It then becomes difficult for people to appreciate a need for implementing certain things. The management of performance is another area where the top management was not considered to be managing quite well. If something is not measured or monitored, it becomes easy for people to slip in doing it. The performance system in the CDC was found not to be properly managed, not well understood and not effectively communicated by top management. As a result of this, things fell by the way side, some not being implemented and some poorly implemented.

These are the five main stated reasons that led the CDC to be poor in implementing PIPs and other initiatives in the past. As stated above, further account on these will be provided under Chapter 9. Means by which improved and sustainable implementation could be ensured in the future will be dealt with in the next section.

5.3 The Answer to the Second Part of the Research Question

5.3.1 General overview

In this section I will be focussing on the second part of the research question which seeks to establish means by which implementation of PIPs in the CDC could be improved in the future. As with the first part of the question, I will just highlight the outcomes at this stage and I will present the full account on the process followed with all the arguments in Chapter 9.

Considering the issues that were raised under Section 5.2 as key reasons for poor implementation in the CDC, I considered that it would be critical for the CDC to address those areas first and then consider others as time goes. The reason for adopting this approach was informed by the fact that it appears that by addressing


Copyright UCT

- 55 -

these areas most of the implementation related problems would be addressed. Following this I had an idea of listing these issues similarly to the first question. However, I considered that addressing any of these items in isolation might not yield a sustainable solution to the CDC’s problems on poor implementation. This does not suggest that a step-by-step approach, e.g. a small wins approach, could not be adopted. In that respect I decided that a CLD would be the most appropriate approach to presenting these outcomes – to emphasize the systemicity of events.

5.3.2 The answer

(a) Improve the level of requisite knowledge and the level of planning

The CDC has to pay attention on acquiring requisite knowledge on areas that would improve the implementation process. Reading, undertaking courses, and training does not equate to knowledge acquisition but to information gathering. Acquisition of requisite knowledge goes beyond that (Hutchinson, 1989). It is realised only after the information has been internalised, synthesised, applied, and reflected upon – at which stage true learning would have taken place. Therefore actionable knowledge is key. Focus would be on three areas: knowledge on the subject matter (area where the knowledge is being applied, e.g. TQM); on the implementation process; and on planning. As the level of acquired knowledge is improved it will enable CDC members to improve their planning process so that it becomes integrated and holistic. This would also enable forecasting and prioritisation. With higher level of planning, there would be higher level of success on implementation. In order to assess objectively the degree of success on implementation, one would require an effective monitoring system for reflection. The more effective the monitoring system is the better the chances for one to reflect objectively on the process and this will improve his/her knowledge on the process. This is how acquisition of requisite and actionable knowledge and improved level and effectiveness of planning would assist in improving success of implementation in the future. This is presented as a CLD in Figure 16(a).


Copyright UCT

- 56 -


(b) Increase effectiveness of communication

Effective planning, it being holistic and integrated, would include details on how the implementation process would be rolled out. This would include resource allocation, milestone planning, and communication strategy with details on how it would be done. Therefore the higher the level of planning, having that plan been executed, the more effective the communication would be. The effectiveness of communication would improve the level of buy-in, level of appreciating the relevance and importance of what needs to be implemented. The more there is buy-in and understanding of a direction needing to be undertaken, the better the chances of implementation would be. The higher the drive for implementation, the higher the drive for monitoring true progress and this would be a driver to improving a monitoring system. This would also include production of progress reports by those who would be reporting to others. Therefore by improving the effectiveness of communication, the CDC would improve the chances of successful implementation in the future. This is shown as Loop 2 in Figure 16(b).

Figure 16(a): Effect of improved requisite knowledge and improved level of planning on the success of implementation.

Loop 1

Copyright UCT

- 57 -


(c) Improve the quality of leadership

A leader is expected to be a visionary, to guide, and to encourage its followers to a better future. Those in leadership have to acquire requisite knowledge that would improve the quality of their leadership role. Being put in front of people (positional leadership) does not make one to be a natural true leader therefore requires that one makes an effort to acquire requisite knowledge to execute this function better. If one fails to do so he/she would merely be walking in front of others, obscuring their views, blocking their ways, and retarding their progress. Acquisition of requisite knowledge would enhance one’s leadership qualities. The more a leader acquires and applies knowledge that would assist in improving his/her effectiveness in executing his/her leadership tasks, the greater the potential of guiding and assisting others in a more desirable manner. Therefore the higher the quality of leadership, the higher that level of planning would be and as dealt with in (a) above, the higher would the chances of successful implementation would be. This is shown as Loop 3 in Figure 16(c).

Figure 16(b): Effect of improved communication implementation.

Copyright UCT

- 58 -


Level ofplanning

Degree of focussing

Level of requisite

knowledge


Quality of leadership on

implementation

Effectivenessof a monitoring

system

Loop 1

Loop 2

Loop 3

(d) Enhance the level of discipline on implementation

Leadership plays a role in enhancing the level of discipline on implementation. The climate in the organisation and how conducive the work environment is determines the extent to which people feel and get encouraged about what they do. These are also influenced by the leadership. As leadership qualities are enhanced, the more a leader would demonstrate an ability to hear the unspoken word, encouraging, and guiding others in carrying out their work. In doing so, the more people would find excitement, enjoyment, and willingness to execute their assignments. The more one finds something that is internally driven that will keep him/her committed and interested in what needs to be done, the more one will be commitment in doing things in a certain way, ensuring internalisation of better ways of doing them and that such are internalised and are carried out willingly. This will also enhance one’s focus on it. This is how internally driven discipline on implementation could be enhanced. From sustainability point of view this is preferred over externally driven disciplinarian approach. This is what the CDC should strive for to improve the chances of success on implementation in the future. This is shown as Loop 4 in Figure 16(d).

Figure 16(c): The effect of quality of leadership on implementation.

Copyright UCT

- 59 -

Level ofplanning

Degree of focussing

Level of enthusiasm, dedication,

passion and drive

Level of requisite

knowledge


Level of disciplineon implementation


implementation


system

Loop 1

Loop 2

Loop 4

Loop 3

Figure 16(d): The level of discipline on implementation.

(e) Sustainable implementation

The CDC needs to ensure that the drive for implementation is sustained. There is a tendency for a drive on implementation to dwindle with time (Hill and Jones, 1998), thus affecting the sustainability of the implementation process. The internally driven discipline on implementation accompanied by conducive work environment that is influenced by quality leadership would enhance the chances of sustaining implementation in the CDC. This is shown as Loop 5 in Figure 16(e).


Copyright UCT

- 60 -

Level ofplanning

Degree of focussing

Level of enthusiasm, dedication,

passion and drive

Level of requisite

knowledge




implementation


system


Loop 1

Loop 2

Loop 5

Loop 4

Loop 3

Figure 16(e): Ensuring sustainable implementation. This concludes this chapter where reasons behind poor implementation in the CDC have been presented and how those could be addressed to improve the situation in the future. The next chapters will look at how these answers came to being and also the thought process that informed me in arriving at them.

5.3.3 The utility of the answer

Utility seeks to assess the extent to which the research answer will satisfactorily deal with the concern. My concern was that I would not be able to implement TQM satisfactorily if the CDC continues implementing PIPs as poorly as it is doing currently. TQM is a typical PIP, therefore things that affect other PIPs and other initiatives will affect TQM as well. The research answer provides means by which the effectiveness of implementation of other PIPs could be improved in the future. The recommended solutions were informed by the key reasons that led to poor implementation of other PIPs. The answer identifies key things that could be pursued to address the issues. While it was appreciated that this will not be a once off process, there is much certainty that once the recommended answer is implemented the extent to which the PIPs would be implemented would improve and this would increase chances of success on implementing TQM. Therefore I would conclude that the research answer will satisfactorily deal with the concern.


Copyright UCT

- 61 -

CHAPTER 6

“Knowledge is not passively received either through the senses or by way of communication, but is actively built up by the cognising subject” ..…..Ernst van Glasersfeld

6 THE METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH TO RESEARCH

This chapter covers the approach that I adopted in conducting this research work. But fundamentally, what remains hidden is what informed that approach. Therefore over and above highlighting how I approached the research work I need to reveal the thought process that informed that approach. This research is aimed at getting an understanding on why the implementation was so poor in the CDC and how it could be improved. Because it is dealing with creation of actionable knowledge, I will start off by looking at how I see the development of that knowledge. In a way this informs my paradigm. Perhaps it may be worthwhile to reiterate what a paradigm is. Gummesson (1991: Hill and McGowan,1999) define a paradigm as “a world view representing people’s value judgements, norms, standards, frames of reference, perspectives, ideologies, myths, theories and so forth.”

6.1 The Paradigm: From an Epistemological Point of View

In this section I will be surfacing how I see the development of knowledge. I will present various approaches that have been developed in this area and then provide my own views. These are the views that I will be carrying throughout this research work.

6.1.1 From literature / theory…

Heylighen (1993) defines epistemology as a branch of philosophy that studies knowledge. “It studies its nature, origin, and scope” (Wikipedia, 2006:1). According to Heylighen, “the first theories of knowledge stressed its absolute, permanent character, whereas the latter theories put the emphasis on its relativity or situation-dependence, its continuous development or evolution, and its active interference with the world”. “Following the Renaissance, two main epistemological positions dominated philosophy: empiricism, which sees knowledge as the product of sensory perception, and rationalism, which sees it as the product of rational reflection” (Heylighen, 1993:1). The other term that describes the similar concept as empiricism is phenomenology. According to the Oxford Dictionary, phenomenology is concerned about what is perceived by the senses in contrast to what is independently true or real about the world. Easterby-Smith et al (1991,


Copyright UCT

- 62 -

quoted by Bowey, 2002) describe phenomenology as “the idea that reality is socially constructed rather than objectively determined.”

Pragmatism is thinking about or treating things in a practical way rather than according to general theories (Oxford Dictionary). According to pragmatic epistemology knowledge consists of models that attempt to represent the environment (Heylighen). According to this view no model can ever hope to capture all relevant information. Constructivism assumes that all knowledge is built up from scratch by the subject of knowledge, e.g. the person who wants to know (Heylighen). On the other side objectivism assumes that objects have intrinsic meaning according to this view. Knowledge represents the real world that is thought of as existing, separate and independent of the knower (Murphy, 1997). This is not far from the positivism, which refers to the system of philosophy that is based on concrete things, things that can be seen or proved rather than ideas (Oxford Dictionary).

6.1.2 ….to my paradigm

Having considered all the material in 6.1.1, I hold a view that we all know the world only through all our senses (phenomenological development / empiricism) because this is how we interact with it. How “good” our senses are in picking up what is “real” and how “good” and unbiased our receptors are in selecting the “correct” information (received through the five senses by the way) determines how close or far we would be from claiming “reality” (the rationalism). I move that reality outside what we perceive through our five senses is only imaginary. It is only when we have subjected the object through all our senses that we could claim to know it. For instances the first time we talk to person over the phone we develop a mental picture of how he/she looks like, being informed by our perceptions. Talking to that person often enough over the phone drives us to claim that we know that person, yet we only imagine how that person looks like.

When we talk about objects, we use constructs, terms that best suite our understanding or develop mental or physical models that we cannot totally claim that they represent the “total reality” because we cannot claim to know “reality”. We use existing models, new insights, our interpretations to develop those models (constructivism). Even if a model has been developed by someone else or interpretation of something has already been provided, we still need to create our own understanding or meaning thereby constructing a new model, construct, interpretation, or meaning which fits our personal perceptions, which then informs our world view. As we get more information, or develop more insights we reframe and provide a new meaning, model or interpretation of what we knew before (constructivism).


Copyright UCT

- 63 -

In most instances we disagree because we assign different meanings to the same thing but we hold unto our meanings and fail to attempt a common understanding. Intellectuals would spend hours arguing about the form because each one sees his/her view as being better than the other’s. For instance systems “gurus” seem to be disagreeing on “basic” things – the appropriateness or representativity of one methodology over the other, as reflected in Jackson’s (2001) book. If we were aware of the fact that the models that we build are informed by our perceptions and that there is no model that is absolute, we should be embracing other people’s views, different views, see how best we could modify our prior positions – and move on! Plato (Heylighen) views that, “knowledge is merely an awareness of absolute, universal ideas or forms, existing independent of the any subject trying to apprehend to them”. But I would tend to think that objects, some processes and activities occur in the universe independent of the knower. Knowledge on the other hand occurs in the knower, independent of what takes place in the universe! That’s how people innovate - coming up with things that never existed before! In that, I am influenced more by authors such as Kolb, Argyris, Handy (quoted by Hutchinson) with respect to acquisition of knowledge from observations. This is depicted well in Charles Handy’s Wheel of Adult Learning. What is advocated there is that knowledge follows the practical experience of the subject matter derived through implementation or testing. It results from internalisation, synthesis, and reflection on the subject and follows true learning. To me what happens before that process is merely information gathering. The progression is as follows: This how I see knowledge and this is what informs my thinking – and my paradigm (or rather the little that I know about myself – as alluded to under Section 11).

starts from being uninformed

Acquisition of wisdom

knowledgeable (learned)

well informed (well-read)

6.2 The Research Methodology 6.2.1 The theoretical understanding…

How do we actually source and compile the information that we attempt to make sense of; the information that we use to build physical and mental models to understand the world better and its interactions? Research is one means by which this could be achieved. To me, the other approach is for people to act on presumed information. They create models based on a pile of assumptions about the real world, and then act on that information. The recent (2004) bombing of Iraq by the Americans and its allies provides a good example of that. They assumed, imagined, convinced themselves, believed and then tried to convince others that Iraq was


Copyright UCT

- 64 -

harbouring weapons of mass destruction. This also happens at smaller scale in our organisations where we implement systems/ policies/ improvement programmes with very scanty information about them or about the nature of the problem being addressed and expect marvellous results.

Booth et al (2003) define research as “gathering information to answer a question that solves a problem”. Dick (1992, quoted in Lecture Notes) highlights that there are two types of researches that are reported: the qualitative and quantitative.

Qualitative research is concerned with understanding of meanings, concepts, behaviours, explanation, and description of things. On the other hand quantitative research is concerned with collecting, analysing and interpreting data. Qualitative research is regarded as being subjective whereas quantitative research is regarded as being objective (uk.geocite.com). It is believed that the approaches to these types of research are different on how data is collected, the types of questions asked in collecting data, and the method of analysis. uk.geocite.com listed about 24 differences between these two types of researches.

6.2.2 …and my approach

To some extent I regard the attempt to differentiate between qualitative and quantitative research as being reductionist. Most managerial problems require both quantitative and qualitative assessment. For instance, assessing the rate of staff attrition would need one to determine the trend on rate of attrition – which is a numbers-based; and the reasons for the observed behaviour would be obtained from qualitative research – looking for an explanation. “What differentiates good companies from great companies” was Jim Collins’ question (Collins, 2001). Although he was conducting a qualitative research, it was through a quantitative research that he could provide formidable information/evidence to support his qualitative claims. However, in this research I am not dealing with any numbers as the main focus is to get an understanding or explanation pertaining to implementation in the CDC. Therefore qualitative research is a methodology that I pursued.

6.3 The Approaches and Methods

Now that the methodology has been dealt with, the next question is: what methods do we use to collect this information. Various qualitative research methods have been presented by Hill and McGowan (1999) and by faculty.ncwc.edu (2004). These are:


Copyright UCT

- 65 -

(a) Case studies; (h) Dramaturgical interviewing; (b) Action research; (i) Sociometry; (c) Grounded theory; (j) Natural experiment; (d) Participant Observation; (k) Unobstructive measure; (e) Ethnography/field research; (l) Contact analysis; (f) Photography; (m) Historiography; and (g) Ethnomethodology; (n) Secondary analysis of data. Given all these methods, the question that I had was: which method should I pursue? What informs me about the appropriateness or relevancy of a particular method? How do I deal with my biases as I choose the method to consider? The means by which I achieved this was getting an understanding of what each one of these seeks to address and checked that against what needs to be addressed in this research. The sociological paradigm that I sought to use in doing this is the Interpretive. This is what I did and the outcomes are presented as Appendix D. The qualitative research methods that resulted from that process are: action research, grounded theory, participant observant, and case studies. These will be elucidated below. 6.3.1 Action Research

Theoretical understanding: O’Brien (1998) defines action research as “learning by doing”. A more succinct definition that he offers is (pp 3): “Action research… aims to contribute both to the practical concerns of people in an immediate problematic situation and to further the goals of social science simultaneously. Thus, there is a dual commitment in action research to study a system and concurrently to collaborate with members of the system in changing it in what is together regarded as a desirable direction.” Action research is regarded as being cyclic and also as a learning cycle (Dick (1992, EMBA6 Study Notes, Systal, Module2, Reading 4). Mostly it starts off with a fuzzy question. At this point the methodology used is fussy as which will result in a rather fuzzy answer. Through recurring reflection, refinement and fine-tuning the quality improves. This is continued until the required outcomes are achieved. Dick provides the diagram in Figure 17 to explain it. I have modified this figure to indicate a continuous endless cyclic which needs reviewing as long as the outcomes of the process are being used.

The practice: My research is based on a practical problem that exists in the organisation that is of concerns not only to me but also to other members of staff. The use of action research in trying to address the research question befitted the situation. I needed to


Copyright UCT

- 66 -

look at the problem from practical point of view, and assess the relevance of the answer to the CDC situation.

Intent Action Review

What outcomes do I wish to achieve?

What actions do I think I will achieve

the outcomes?

Act

Did I achieve the desired outcomes?

Now that I’ve got them, do I still

want them?

Yes

Yes

No

No

Figure 17: The modified cyclic nature of action research (Dick, 1992). I chose action research because it converges to something more useful over time for both action and understanding. I also chose it because of the rigour which it allows. Schön (1987) also argues strongly that systematic reflection is an effective way for practitioners to learn. Handy (1989) also points out that it’s only through reflection that effective learning could be achieved.

6.3.2 Grounded theory

Theoretical understanding: Action research actually looks at the process that one follows in dealing with the data or information that has been captured. It does not look at how the data/information itself is dealt with. The main purpose of using the grounded theory approach is to explore natural processes with the goal of developing some theory and using the action research approach to improve its rigour. In fact if we refer back to Figure 17 I used it to unpack the block “Act”. Grounded theory does not start with a theory and then prove it. Rather, it begins with an area of study and what is relevant to that area is allowed to emerge. As Tom Ryan (Lecture Notes) stated, “in any sane and purposeful human action, the actors act because they believe that their action will improve their circumstances or those of the context in which the action takes place.” In other words, the need for undertaking the study by the actor would have been determined by a research question following a certain practical problem that needs to be addressed.


Copyright UCT

- 67 -

The practice: I used grounded theory in my research because I did not intend to have any hypothesis to prove or disprove but just to see what comes out of the fieldwork. With a number of triangulated readings from various sources there was resonance of issues emanating from the reading towards some broad common concepts. The problem here was that I did not know what the real reasons behind poor implementation were and I wanted to get to the bottom of things. This is why and how I used grounded theory. By its nature, grounded theory would require quite a substantial reading.

6.3.3 Participant observant Theoretical basis: According to faculty.ncwc.edu (2003) and uk.geocites.com participant-observation occurs when the researchers immerse themselves in the day-to-day activities of the people whom they are attempting to understand. It seeks to address a need for naturalism – need for the social world to be studied in its ‘natural state’ undisturbed by the researcher (uk.geocites.com). This is in line with systems thinking which reinforces the fact that the behaviour of a component of a system should be studied within the system as it changes when removed from that system and studied on its own (Jackson, 2003). Different roles that could be played by the researcher were outlined as being: (a) Complete participant – the researcher engaging fully in the activities of the

group; (b) Participant as observer – the researcher is a supporter of the activities but

does not influence the group or attempt to act as one of the group; (c) Observer as participant – the researcher participates as in once-off activity

and then takes a back sit; and (d) Complete observer – the researcher is uninvolved and detached. The practice: In line with the notion of action research, I am a member of the CDC and I am one of the actors in the observed tendencies with respect to implementation. At times I implement things and not succeed in implementing them effectively. At times I’m asked by others to implement things and sometimes I don’t implement them for certain reasons. Poor implementation is of concern to me. The feeling is that if things that led me and others not to implement things effectively were to be addressed, then the situation would be a lot better than it is. In this respect, I’m also at the centre of the issues and therefore being a participant observant was inevitable! As I studied the situation, I had to use myself as a test case at times. The role that I played was that of a complete participant. The challenge with this role is the extent to which I needed to guard against my biases


Copyright UCT

- 68 -

– which could lead to exaggeration. In that instance I had to let the views of others take precedence. Rationalism, mostly from the utilitarianism and rights points of view needed to play significant role. I hold a view that a consultant who comes and attempts to understand how we do things is most likely to miss things completely! While emphasizing on participant-observant, I could not stay away from historiography and enthnography and to me there was nothing wrong with that.

6.3.4 Case studies The theoretical foundation: Eisenhardt (1989) highlights that case studies can be used to provide description, test theory, or generate theory. The interpretation of case studies is normally speculative because invariable not all the information is provided (Christensen, 1997). Case studies are opposite of theories in that they report on concrete information. Therefore while theories provide possibilities, case studies provide concrete information which could be interpreted using theories. The practice: To me case studies present historical records of the events that took place in a particular environment. Because they are historical, their accuracy depends upon the rationalism of the person(s) who observed, recorded and reported on those events. I used case studies in my research work because they presented a complete application of some of the concepts contained in the theory. They presented a sound concrete evidence for some of the positions that I made. I also used them to provide some concrete practices from which I could learn and either confirm the existing theory or develop new theory. As a participant observer, this also enabled an opportunity where I brought up full live cases. The challenge with case studies is the selection of information to be included in the case. How one strikes a balance becomes a challenge. But in the end they provided useful insight into some of the practices.

6.4 Data Collection

The sources of information that I used were field observations, questionnaires, theories and from journals, publications, and websites. I needed to look at various sources of information so as to ensure the triangulation of information and to get a various perspectives that people have. It was essential that I conduct the surveys in-house so that I could start involving the organisation in the process, correct my own thinking about the


Copyright UCT

- 69 -

organisation, and also to get views of the people who will be affected directly by the outcomes of this research. With respect to interviews I could have chosen structured, semi-structured or unstructured interviews. I opted for unstructured interviews because I wanted people to be ‘free’ in expressing themselves and that also enabled them to surface issues the way they saw them. Structured interviews would box them in a particular thought process which could limit them from being expressive, which in itself would have been problematic in that it would have been predetermined and informed by what I would have thought were essential questions to ask. This is also in line with Grounded Theory approach –as it allowed issues to emerge rather than be guided. During the process I used note taking. I tried not to interfere and did not express my own thoughts during the process.

6.5 Theory Development

In the end, I needed to develop a theory as a research answer. Eisenhardt (1989) pointed out that theory is developed by combining observations, from literature, common sense and experience. I think that “new” theory (new to the knower) could also be derived by combining existing theories. The process that I followed in arriving at the theory was informed by what is alluded to above by Eisenhardt, being where I also used some management tools such as Causal Loop Diagrams.

This concludes this section – providing a methodology that I followed in my research work. I summarised this information in Figure 18, overleaf. (As may be appreciated, the time did not allow me to have full appreciation of all the philosophical “ologies” to include in this flow diagram, therefore it still needs to be developed further.}


Copyright UCT

- 70 -


`

Epistemology

Constructivism Objectivism

Empiricism / Phenomenology

Pragmatism / Positivism

Figure 18: Methodological approach that I constructed from literature. The coloured blocks denote what I support and followed in this research work.

PARADIGM

METHODOLOGY

METHODS

SOURCES

Qualitative Research

Quantitative Research

Action Research Grounded Theory

Surveys

Case Studies

Literature Review Field observation

ANSWER / THEORY Theory Development

Participant observant

How

What

Copyright UCT

- 71 -

CHAPTER 7

Learning is discovery, but discovery doesn’t happen unless you are looking. ………Dewey

7 THE RESEARCH

This chapter covers the research work that I carried out. Effectively, it highlights the information that informed the outcomes of this dissertation. The research work that I carried out comprised of three sections: the literature review; the case studies; and surveys. I’ll be providing information on these areas, starting with the literature review.

7.1 Literature Review

7.1.1 The approach to literature review I expected that there would be lot of information on the subject from a number of sources. Because of anticipated volume; possible breadth of the topic; and time limitations on my side I needed be selective on the area of focus. But the question was: how do I go about deciding on the literature to focus on? How would I ensure that this approach would not eliminate some of the crucial information that could assist in addressing the problem? I needed to guard against the notion of formulating some possible answers in my mind and then look for literature that supports that. I needed to avoid that because there would be no added value by doing so and that would not be supported by Grounded Theory. Through the reading I needed to surface some information to use in addressing the practical problem. This is what is supported by Grounded Theory. The literature that I considered focussed on the causes of poor implementation in organisations and on how successful implementation could be ensured. I tried to structure my approach around the framework presented under Section 3.3.3 (Figure 5). The intention was not to box myself in but to ensure that all those processes that inform the full implementation are covered.

7.1.2 The planning process Changes that take place in the contextual environment, transactional, or internal environment require that some action be undertaken by organisations to respond to them. However, because of different world-views, it does not follow that everybody would see a need to respond to such changes. In that respect Brumley (2003) raises that one of the barriers to implementation is an assumption that the


Copyright UCT

- 72 -

status quo is ok. Such observations could be true or could be subject to Type II Error. After a decision has been taken by an organisation to respond to a practical problem there is a need to start planning on how to respond to it. Sandy (1991, Smit, 2003) highlights that breakdowns in implementation occur when the strategic initiative is not well organised for action. This then requires that proper planning takes place. Mann and Kehoe (1995) also mentioned that one of the prime reasons for many organisations to find it difficult to implement an effective TQM policy is that they fail to identify what they are attempting to change and achieve by implementing TQM. But while it is important to plan Brumley (2003) raised that studying the problem too long without acting (analysis paralysis) is also a barrier to implementation. How one strikes a balance remains a question. Nutt (1986, quoted by Lehmann and Richards, 2002) noted that the key step in a planned implementation process is formulation. In the formulation stage, needs and opportunities are clarified, problems identified and proposed objectives clearly stated. Unclear details on how the goals of the plan would be achieved have been highlighted by the Monash University (2003) as one of the reasons for poor implementation. They also added that a plan that is too ambitious and too difficult to achieve the goals set out is also another barrier to implementation. Upton (1998 quoted by Lehmann and Richards, 2002) suggests that the goals should be tied to the motivating context and should be clear and concrete. They also added that the goals should also focus on few (critical) things at a time. Chrisander (2005), looking at the reasons for European Union’s (EU) poor performance in implementing its laws, saw no point for the EU to agree on a lot of rules and laws if it is not going to enforce them. Considering the systemic nature of management issues, there is a need to look at issues holistically. To that some of the relevant issues that were raised by Hambrick and Cannella (1989: Smit, 2003) that need to be undertaken in planning the implementation of a strategy are:

(a) Obtaining broad-based inputs and organisational participation at the strategy formulation stage; and

(b) Making early and decisive moves in important areas such as resources commitment, organisational structure, and reward mechanisms.

In looking at the problems associated with poor implementation of a Balanced Scorecard (BSC), 2GC (2003) also highlighted some areas which present particular challenges and these are: (a) Not aligning the BSC with other operational processes; and (b) Weak integration of BSC thinking within the culture of the organisation.


Copyright UCT

- 73 -

Brumley (2003) and Hambrick and Cannella (1989: Smit, 2003) raised a need to try to anticipate barriers to implementation so that strategies could be developed to minimise their impact or to avoid them altogether. The identification of these enables one to include the mitigatory measures in the plan. This is one of the processes undertaken during Interactive Planning. Kim and Mauborgne (2005) added that overcoming the organisational hurdles to strategy execution is an important step towards being a consistent executor.

During the planning stage, the planner need not only look at the plan itself but also at its implementability. One of the reasons for poor implementation cited by the Monash University (2003) is the lack of appreciation of difficulties associated with implementation by those who developed the plans. This then requires that one looks at who the implementer(s) is (are) and barriers they might encounter. Therefore from the above, the factors associated with planning that may inhibit implementation could be summed up as: (a) Assuming that the status quo is ok and therefore not acting; (b) Studying the problem for too long without acting; (c) Failure to identify what the initiative attempts to achieve and to change; (d) Poor formulation; (e) The strategic initiative is not well organised for action (goals poorly set and

unrealistic - plan is too ambitious, goals too difficult to achieve, plan not easy or possible to implement);

(f) Goals that focus on too many critical things a time; (g) Unclear details on how the goals of a plan would be achieved; (h) Not aligning the initiative with other operational processes; and (i) Weak integration of initiative with the culture of the organisation.

These will be revisited towards the end of this chapter. We will now turn to the next process looking at the implementer of a plan.

7.1.3 The role of implementer(s) The execution of a plan could be led or carried out by one person, a group of individuals (e.g. Quality Management Committee) or by another organisation (e.g. a firm of consultants conducting an Environmental Impact Assessment.) An implementer may be requested or appointed by a sponsor to execute the plan. I am referring to a sponsor as a person(s) who conceived the idea of addressing the identified need, which could be an organisation with a need to be fulfilled e.g. a study to be conducted. Depending upon the nature of the project the plan itself may, to some extent, have already been developed by the sponsor.


Copyright UCT

- 74 -

When the implementer proceeds with implementation he/she takes charge of the process. Following this the success of the implementation process would, to large extent, therefore depend upon the implementer. This is more like a car whose performance, to some extent, depends upon the driver – other determinants being the car itself, the weather, and the road conditions. In that respect, in his framework for an improvement strategy, Upton (1998, quoted by Lehmann and Richards, 2002) highlighted a need to select the right people and methods for implementation; and select the team (the implementers) and the organisation of the team carefully. He added that it is the type of a team that makes a difference. Brumley (2002) also indicated that ineffective implementation teams are barriers to implementation. Following his study on implementation tactics, Nutt (1986, quoted by Lehmann and Richards, 2002) concluded that actively involved interventionist managers were the most successful implementers. Collins (2001:127) also noted that “People in good-to-great companies became somewhat extreme in the fulfilment of their responsibilities, bordering in some cases on fanaticism.” Training has been highlighted as one of the critical success factors to implementation of PIPs such as TQM (Seraph et al, 1989; Porter and Parker, 1993; Yong and Wilkinson, 2001). Rizzuto (2003) identified lack of proper training as one of the sources of people-related barriers to implementation. According to Tan (1997) many organisations failed to implement TQM because they attempted to implement techniques, without adopting the TQM philosophy of empowering team workforce. Chrisander (2005) carried out a study on the European Union’s (EU) problems with implementation of its laws. He identified inability of the authorities of the member states to implement EU law due to its size and complexity as one of the causes of non-uniform application and uneven implementation of EU law across the Union. I considered this to have been a capacity issue in terms of the depth of technical core competence (the know-how) and the number of people who are able to undertake such assignment.

The success of implementation is not only determined by what needs to be implemented but also how the implementation is carried out. Sunter and Ilbury (2001) alluded to the fact that the approach that one adopts in implementation determines the success to the implementation process. They differentiate between foxy and hedgehog approaches where they state that the foxy approach is most ideal. According to them (pp 10) “a fox is someone who believes that life is about knowing many things. Foxes are people who embrace uncertainty and believe that experience is an essential source of knowledge… Foxes turn adversity to opportunities.” On the other hand they defined a hedgehog as someone who believes that life revolves around one big idea, one ultimate truth and that if only we can get at that idea or truth, everything else will come right.

Collins (2001) also uses the hedgehog-fox concept but appreciates it differently. According to him (pp 91) “Foxes pursue many ends at the same time and see the


Copyright UCT

- 75 -

world in all its complexity. Hedgehogs on the other hand simplify the complex world into a single organising idea, a basic principle or concept that unifies and guides everything.” He raises that those who made the biggest impact were hedgehogs and these include, Carl Marx and class struggle; Albert Einstein and relativity; Adam Smith and division of labour. Collins highlights that “hedgehogs understand the essence of profound insight is simplicity. They see what is essential, and ignore the rest.” Collins raises that those that managed to built good-to-great companies were hedgehogs and those who led comparison companies tended to be foxes, being scattered, diffused, and inconsistent. He commends companies that take a simple concept and just do it with excellence and imagination. Probably this concept could be extended to those companies who realised that doing everything does not take them anywhere and decided to concentrate on their core business – their Hedgehog Concept (i.e. what they could be the best at).

The hedgehog-fox concept highlights the different approaches that people could adopt in implementing a strategy. Which one is better than the other, is the question! The success of the implementation will be determined by the approach adopted, given a particular set of circumstances.

Still looking at the characteristics of an implementer, Miller (2001: 108) noted that “winning teams are made up of winning people”. The ability to measure a winner is based on the ability to produce the expected results – and this is delivery. Delivery is preceded by successful implementation of a plan/strategy. It therefore follows that winning teams are teams that succeed on implementation. Miller reports that based on some research work he carried out, high-performance teams require intensive development of essential roles. He identified that certain roles are essential to the survival and achievement of the team. Belbin (1981, MAP 58 Lecture Notes on Group Dynamics – Wits Business School) also identified some of the characters as Miller. He identified both the positive and the negative sides to these as presented in Table 6. Although the distinct characters identified by Miller may be found, Robertson and Abbey (2003) and Belbin (1981) suggest that there may be a combination of these characters, which would then determine dominance of one character over others. Therefore instead of talking about specifics we may be faced with areas of dominance. Belbin (1981, quoted by Miller: pp 110) found that “high-performance teams did not achieve noteworthy results without inclusion of a plant…” This suggests that exclusion of other characters of dominance may not yield the optimum results. This becomes one of the issues to be considered by companies when putting together teams to execute some strategies. However, the issue would be the process of identifying these different areas of dominance.


Copyright UCT

- 76 -

Table 6: Dominant characters and descriptions of team-role contributions and their allowable weaknesses (Belbin, 1981).

DOMINANT CHARACTER

TEAM-ROLE CONTRIBUTION ALLOWABLE WEAKNESSES

Plant Creative, imaginative, unorthodox, solves difficult problems.

Weak in communicating with and managing ordinary people.

Resource Investigator Extrovert, enthusiastic, communicative, explores opportunities, develops contracts.

Loses interest once initial enthusiasm has passed.

Co-ordinator Mature, confident and trusting, good chairman, clarifies goals, promotes decision making.

Not necessarily the most clever or creative member of a group.

Shaper Dynamic, outgoing, highly strung, challenges, pressurises, finds ways around obstacles.

Prone to provocation and short-lived bursts of temper.

Monitor Evaluator Sober, strategic and discerning, sees all options, judges accurately.

Lacks drive and ability to inspire others.

Team-worker Social, mild, perceptive and accommodating, listens, builds, averts friction.

Indecisive in crunch situations.

Implementer Disciplined, reliable, conservative and efficient, turns ideas into practical actions.

Somewhat inflexible, slow to respond to new possibilities.

Completer Painstaking, conscientious, anxious, searches out errors and omissions, and delivers on time.

Inclined to worry unduly. Reluctant to delegate.

Specialist Single-minded, self-starting, dedicated, provides knowledge or technical skills in rare supply.

Contributes on only a narrow front.

In the study that Chrisander (2005) carried out he found that conflict could be a barrier to successful implementation of a strategy. He identified three areas where conflict occurred in his study and these are: (a) Conflict at individual level (e.g. individuals who had interests on pushing

agendas of their countries while serving as EU Commissioners); (b) Conflict within the implementation team (e.g. in his case EU Commissioners

who had diverse beliefs, cultures, interests, styles, preferences, etc.); and (c) Conflict between the implementers and actors who should be conforming to

what is being implemented (e.g. the EU Commission and the Member States in his case).

It is probably along these lines that Smit (2003) highlighted the importance of understanding the daily activities of the implementers of strategy as it affects their ability to implement the strategy. To this he proposes ethnographic-type of research to be conducted in this area.


Copyright UCT

- 77 -

Once a strategy has been implemented successfully, the implementer would expect some form of a reward. This has been highlighted as another potential problem area on implementation. 2GC (2003) noted that one of the areas that presents particular challenge to implementation is misalignment between incentives and strategic objectives in the BSC. Monash University (2003) also commented on this issue where they raised that performance of implementers measured in terms of short-term success rather than long-term goals could lead to poor implementation. The improvements to be brought about by implementation of PIP might not be felt immediately due to the time it takes the system to adjust to those changes where upon maximum return would be realised. This brings us to the end of this section. In summary this section highlights that the success of the implementation process is, to a large extent, determined by the implementer: his/her capacity (competence and sufficiency); the drive, passion, fanaticism on the implementer; the approach adopted when implementing a strategy/plan – the Hedgehog-Fox Concept; the distinct character of the implementer; the potential conflicts; and also the incentive mechanism.

We shall now turn to the design process by the implementers to identify factors associated with this process as they impact on the success of the implementation process.

7.1.4 Process design Process design would include finer detailed preparatory work carried out by the implementer before executing the plan. It is concerned with details on how the initiative would be implemented. This includes resource planning; setting of milestones for certain deliverables; identifying the approach to be adopted in the implementation process; risk identification and mitigation measures; constraints management and management of systemic impacts; communication strategy; and planning small wins. This has a bearing on the success of implementation because as cited by Monash University (2003) unclear details on how the goals of the plan would be achieved would lead to poor implementation. 2GC (2003) also identified that poor initial design caused by poor understanding of concepts and processes necessary for implementing the Balance Scorecard (BSC) are a barrier to successful implementation. Somehow, I found very limited coverage in the literature on this area. Perhaps it is considered as part of the planning process dealt with under Section 7.1.2. But, be that as it may, failure by the implementer to establish this plan/design could be barrier to successful implementation. When the implementer has finished with his/her plan it has to be communicated with all those who would be affected by it. Of cause this would not apply in instances where this action is intended to be a


Copyright UCT

- 78 -

surprise e.g. military attack, surprise party, police raids, espionage, etc. The next sub-section covers communication in more detail.

7.1.5 Information sharing through effective communication In looking at the problems associated with poor implementation of the Balanced Scorecard, 2GC (2003) identified poor communication as one of the problems leading to poor implementation. Padhi (2000) and Porter and Parker (1993) identified communication as one of the success factors to implementation of TQM and this would apply other PIPs as well. How does one get the organisation moving in the desired direction in the first instance? Upton (1998 quoted by Lehmann and Richards, 2002) points out that for successful implementation to occur a clear motivation is required and this needs to be communicated to the affected parties. Kotter (1995, quoted by Lehmann and Richards (2002) cites that “not establishing a great sense of urgency” is one of the key reasons why transformation efforts fail. However, I think that this would have to be done within moral limits by not fabricating a sense of urgency as this may backfire and threaten the success of future attempts to implement strategies! However, while it is important to get everybody on board, Brumley (2002) warns that trying to get everyone’s agreement first could be a barrier to implementation. This follows the fact that people’s aptitudes towards what needs to be implemented differ. But for all what is worth effective communication, not just communication is central to the success of the implementation process. Generally, this section emphasizes the importance of communication and implies that lack of effective communication is barrier to implementation. I shall now look at the environment within which implementation takes place – more particularly the potential barriers to implementation brought about by it.

7.1.6 The environment within which implementation takes place In this section I would be looking at the barriers to implementation associated with the environment within which execution takes place. In the case of an organisation this would refer to internal environment which includes people, the culture of the organisation, interpersonal relationships, etc. “Actors” are people who would be affected by the implementation process. These people would be expected to contribute towards the realisation of the objectives of what is being implemented. Because of the importance of their involvement, Hambrick and Cannella (1989, Smit, 2003) highlighted a need for “selling” the strategy to them to ensure its successful implementation. Lack of buy-in and failure to gain consensus on a strategic direction leads to resistance to change (Monash University, 2003;


Copyright UCT

- 79 -

Brumley, 2002). This would compromise the effectiveness of the implementation process. According to Kim and Mauborgne (2005:172) “Trepidation builds as people are required to step out of their comfort zones and change how they have worked in the past. The more removed people are from the top and the less they have been involved in the creation of the strategy, the more this trepidation builds.” As raised by Rizzuto (2003), lack of participation due to negative attitudes and incorrect perceptions about the system is one of the barriers to implementation. Because the strategy is implemented by a person, needing other people’s involvement - the actors, it follows that human issues play a role too. Smit (2003: 17-20) points out that interpersonal processes and issues are an important part of any strategy implementation. The factors that he considers as important are the following:

(a) Strategic consensus – a shared understanding and commitment to a strategic

directive between individuals or a group of people. Woolridge and Floyd (1989: Smit, 2003) state that consensus itself should be considered from the scope and the content point of view. Other dimensions of consensus to be considered as raised by Floyd and Woolridge (1992: Smit, 2003) are the cognitive and emotional consensus. Cognitively, this is when people don’t agree on the meaning of the strategy. The affective consensus is influenced by how the proposed strategy fits with what is perceived as the best interest of the organisation and self interests (Smit, 2003). Both cognitive and affective consensus should be considered.

(b) Autonomous strategic behaviours - where no consensus is reached, a person

may pursue his/her own desired ends. Deviation may be well-intentioned or may be self-serving to protect personal turf and power base (Smit). This is typical of what was identified by Chrisander (2005) where he found that one of the failures by EU to implement its strategies successfully were issues of personal conflict among the implementers. According to Smit low commitment by implementers may result in only passive compliance or in “upward intervention”. Upward intervention may include subversive behaviours such as arguments, objecting directives, coalition formation, deliberate creation of barriers to implementation, and even outright sabotage (Smit). However, Bonoma (1986: Smit, 2003) feels that under many conditions a certain amount of autonomic strategic behaviour may be desirable to enable meaningful interventions where necessary.

(c) Diffusion perspectives – this pertains the “trickle down” approach where

information goes through a number of layers before it gets to the ultimate implementer. According to Smit diffusion looks at the reputation of the strategy sponsors; adopters, firm-level factors, and the effects of the nature


Copyright UCT

- 80 -

of strategy being implemented. According to Robertson and Gatignon (1986: Smit, 2003) outward thinkers are more apt to be early adopters.

Following on the Smit’s (2003) thinking, Kim and Mauborgne (2005:175) identified three mutually reinforcing elements that according to them define a fair process: engagement, explanation, and clarity of expectation. They call them the ‘Three E Principles of Fair Process’. “Emotional and intellectual recognition leads to a need for a fair process to be followed. Emotionally, individuals seek recognition of their value. Intellectually individuals seek recognition that their ideas are sought after and are given thoughtful reflection, and that others think enough of their intelligence to explain their thinking to them”. Herzberg (1966, Kim and Mauborgne, 2005) revealed that recognition was found to inspire strong intrinsic motivation, causing people to go beyond the call of duty and engage in voluntary co-operation. The progressive development of these events is depicted in Figure 19.

Intellectual and emotional

recognition

Trust and commitment

Voluntary cooperation in

strategy execution

Fair Process

Figure 19 The execution consequence of the presence of fair process in

strategy making (Kim and Mauborgne, 2005). While there is a common view about a need to motivate people to secure their involvement, Collins (2003) holds a different view. One of the revelations that he came across when he studied good to great companies was that these companies “paid scant attention to managing change, motivating people, or creating alignment”. He found that “under the right conditions, the problems of commitment, alignment, motivation, and change largely melt away” (pp 11). (But what are those right conditions, I asked myself. What are the characteristics of companies that have mastered this?) Collins learnt that the leaders (these being Level 5 leaders) sought to get right people on board and got rid of wrong people. This followed the saying ‘the right people are your most important assets’.

Collins further talks about the culture of discipline. He states that “all companies have culture, some companies have discipline, but few companies have a culture of discipline. When you have disciplined people you don’t need hierarchy. When you have disciplined thought, you don’t need bureaucracy. When you have disciplined action, you don’t need excessive controls. When you combine a culture of discipline with an ethic of entrepreneurship, you get the magical alchemy of great performance” (pp 13). According to Collins the order of events is important where he states: “It all starts with disciplined people… Next we have disciplined thought…. Finally we have disciplined action. But disciplined action without self-


Copyright UCT

- 81 -

disciplined people is impossible to sustain, and disciplined action without disciplined thought is a recipe for disaster” (pp 126). This view is supported by Kim and Mauborgne (2005:171) who state that, “You must create a culture of trust and commitment that motivates people to execute the agreed strategy – not to the letter, but to the spirit. People’s minds and hearts must align with the new strategy so that at the level of the individual, people embrace it of their own accord and willingly go beyond compulsory execution to voluntary co-operation in carrying it out.” To achieve this, companies need to build execution into strategy from start. 2GC (2003) also pointed out that internal politics are the other barriers to successful implementation. Klein and Sorra (1996, quoted by Lehmann and Richards, 2002) postulate that implementation’s effectiveness is a function of organisational climate. Kujala and Lillrank (2004) posit that variation in the success of TQM implementation is related to the discrepancies between the existing organizational culture and the required quality culture. Tata and Prasad (1998) also add that the lack of significant success in implementing TQM is often not a failure of the TQM concept, but a failure to pay sufficient attention to the cultural and structural variables that influence TQM. But I guess we needed to know what those variables are in the first instance! Parncharoen et al (2001) also point out that a number of studies have highlighted that cultural variables may account for the failure of TQM programmes (Galperin, 1995; Katz, et al 1998). So without this culture, they suggest that the implementation of PIP should be halted. At times implementation may be carried out through a Client-Consultant relationship or what Chrisander (2005) refers to as the Principal-Agent (P-A) relationship. In the P-A relationship the principal delegates certain functions or decision-making authorities to the agent, through a contractual agreement. Problems associated with P-A relationship is information asymmetry (not sharing the same information) and conflicting interests (Tallberg, 2003, quoted by Chrisander). “One of the main challenges of the Principal is to structure the relationship in a way that makes the agent likely to act in the desired way. A big problem the Principal faces is Agent shirking. This refers to a situation when the Agent pursues its own interests at the expense of the Principal’s interest” (Chrisander, 2005:10). In the end what is of importance is striking a mutual relationship between the two parties such that successful implementation is ensured. So the issues raised in the section that are barriers to implementation are: (a) Failure to address human relations issues (strategic consensus, autonomous

strategic behaviours, and diffusion perspectives); (b) Failure to create conducive or “right” conditions under which people could

excel; (c) Failure to attain culture of discipline in the organisation;


Copyright UCT

- 82 -

(d) Discrepancies between the existing organizational culture and the required culture for implementing PIPs; and

(e) Lack of proper management of agent by principals in the Principal-Agent relationship.

Now having considered the preparatory issues, how should the implementation process be carried out? What barriers are associated with the implementation process itself? This is covered in the next section.

7.1.7 The implementation process “Well-formulated strategies only produce superior performance for the firm when they are successfully implemented” (Bonoma, 1984: Smit, 2003: 14,). Smit pointed out that despite the significance of the implementation there has been little research carried out in this area. Smit poses a question as to whether some strategists assume that shrewd strategy formulation is the only necessary elements for strategic success. Rizzuto (2003) identified poor management of the implementation process as one of the sources of barriers to implementation.

According to Smit (2003) the implementation style affects the success of the implementation process. Nutt (1983: Smit, 2003) points out that a unilateral approach requires the implementer to merely announce the plan and specify the behaviour needed to comply. This would be more common in command and control set-ups e.g. in the military or at school. Manipulative techniques are more subtle, seeking to emphasise a problem and then steer users to new practices. Delegative techniques involve co-opting those affected by the plan to be involved in the implementation process. In a planner-managed process, the developer takes leadership in trying to “sell” the strategy. In participation-managed organisational participants are involved in a strategy through a process of co-opting. 2GC (2003) and Brumley (2003) pointed out that one of the barriers to implementation is the lack of ownership of the process by the management leading to lack of support. The support from the senior management is regarded as one of critical success factors to successful implementation of PIPs. This is the case because those at the “floor level” get the signal from their managers for the direction to take. Brumley (2003) highlights that failing to build support or replication is barrier to implementation. This support may also translate to the extent to which adequate resources are made available for the implementation process. Resources that are referred to here include adequate time required by the implementer(s) to focus on the implementation process; personnel to assist with implementation; equipment; and sources of information. Without the required resources the implementation process would not be possible as pointed out by Brumley (2003) and Upton (1998, quoted by Lehmann and Richards, 2002).


Copyright UCT

- 83 -

Chrisander (2005) attributed lack of resources faced by the European Union as one of the factors that led to its failure to implement its laws. In the end, Faull and Wood (1999: Mithell and Wier, 2004) suggest that small steps be considered during the implementation process. This is tantamount to the concept of a small wins approach. Smit (2003) also raised that the more radical the changes required by the strategy are, the slower may be the rate of organisational adoption be. Brumley (2003) pointed out that tackling everything all at once could limit the chances of success of implementation. This requires a careful planning during the earlier stages of implementation, prioritising and focussing thereafter. In that respect Faull et al (2004) call for a hedgehog approach where they state that in implementation “lead like a relentless but reflective bulldozer driver.” Talking about focus, Collins (2001:125) reports on Rathmann’s experience when he worked for Abbot Laboratories, before founding his own company Amgen:

“…when you set your objectives for the year, you record them in concrete. You can change the plans through the year, but never change what you measure yourself against. You are rigorous at the end of the year, adhering exactly to what you said was going to happen.”

At Abbott individuals had to commit fully to the Abbott system and were held rigorously accountable for their objectives. What was more important is freedom and responsibility within the framework of a highly developed system. In summary, the main issues associated with the implementation process brought up in this section that may compromise the success of the very implementation process are: (a) Poor management of the implementation process; (b) Lack of ownership of the process by the management leading to lack of

support; (c) Poor allocation of resources; (d) Radical changes brought about by what is being implemented; and (e) Lack of focus on the strategic intent. When a strategy/plan has been implemented, how does one assess whether its strategic objectives have been met? The next section looks into that and also on the barriers to successful implementation that are associated with this process.

7.1.8 Monitoring, evaluation and reporting

“What gets measured gets done!” Implementation is aimed at achieving the objectives of a plan. Successful implementation therefore would be realised when those objectives have been met (Smit, 2003). It is through objective measuring that it would possible to pronounce


Copyright UCT

- 84 -

on those. Rizzuto (2003) identified lack of proper feedback, following monitoring and measuring, as one of the sources of barriers to implementation. This process affords an implementer an opportunity to reflect on the assumptions that were made during the design stage and be in a position to effect some improvements. Hambrick and Cannella (1989 : Smit, 2003) raised a need for fine-tuning, adjusting, and responding as events and trends arise as one of the requirements for successful strategy implementation. It is also upon this process that it would be possible to carry out continuous improvement required in Quality Management Systems (QMS).

To objectively measure the rate of success a control mechanism is used. Smit (2003) considers that such control mechanisms have to be flexible or adaptable to change with the changing circumstances as other information unfolds during the implementation process, requiring modification of the initial strategic intent. In other words the reported success is also a function of the control mechanism used to assess such an implementation.

While it is important to measure and report, Brumley (2002) points out that this process might have its negative side effects. He listed the following as barriers: (a) Measuring nothing or everything; (b) Lack of adequate resources to ensure effective monitoring process; and (c) Burdensome data collection. Effectiveness of punitive measures in instances of poor implementation could also determine the seriousness with which people implement strategies. Chrisander (2005) noticed that the lack of deterrence in the Commission’s threat of sanctions was one of the barriers to successful implementation of EU laws. In other words, it’s the ineffectiveness of disciplinary measures. So in summary the issues associated with monitoring and reporting that may inhibit success to implementation are: (a) Effectiveness of the monitoring system; (b) Flexibility or adaptability of control mechanisms for measuring performance

/ implementation; (c) Measuring nothing or everything; (d) Lack of adequate resources to ensure effective monitoring process; (d) Burdensome data collection; and (e) Effectiveness of punitive measures. This concludes the literature review which highlighted issues that are considered as barriers to successful implementation. I will consolidate all these issues in the next section so as to provide a complete picture.


Copyright UCT

- 85 -

7.1.9 Consolidating key issues from the literature At the end of each of the previous sections (Sections 7.1.2 to 7.1.8) I summarised the issues that were raised as barriers to implementation following the literature review. These have now been consolidated in Table 7 to provide a complete picture. Table 7: Consolidation of issues that are reported in the literature as barriers

to implementation.

STAGE ON THE PROCESS

IDENTIFIED BARRIER TO IMPLEMENTATION

The Planning Process (a) Assuming that the status quo is ok; (b) Studying the problem for too long without acting; (c) Failure to identify what the initiative attempts to achieve and

change; (d) Poor formulation; (e) The strategic initiative is not well organised for action (goals

poorly set and unrealistic - plan is too ambitious, goals too difficult to achieve, plan not easy or possible to implement);

(f) Goals that focus on too many critical things a time; (g) Unclear details on how the goals of the plan would be

achieved; (h) Not aligning the initiative with other operational processes;

and (i) Weak integration of initiative with the culture of the

organisation.

The role of implementer(s)

(a) Inability to select the most effective implementer for a particular assignment;

(b) Lack of drive, passion, fanaticism on the implementer; (c) Inability to select the composition of implementers based on

the dominant characters for specific roles; (d) The issues of conflict; (e) Inappropriate incentive mechanism; and (f) Inability for the organisation to identify its Hedge-hog

concept – area of focus.

Process Design (a) Failure to develop/design a plan for execution;

Information sharing through effective communication

(a) Lack of effective communication;

Environment within which implementation takes place

(a) Failure to address human relations issues (strategic consensus, autonomous strategic behaviours, and diffusion perspectives);

(b) Failure to create conducive or “right” conditions under which people could excel;

(c) Failure to attain culture of discipline in the organisation; (d) Discrepancies between the existing organizational culture

and the required culture for implementing the PIP; (e) Lack of proper training afforded actors i.e. to those who are

supposed to be taking part in the implementation process; and

(f) Lack of proper management of agent by principals in the Principal-Agent relationship.


Copyright UCT

- 86 -

Implementation process

(a) Poor management of the implementation process (b) Lack of ownership of the process by the management

leading to lack of support; (c) Poor allocation of resources; (d) Radical changes brought about by what is being

implemented; and (e) Loss of focus on the strategic intent.

Monitoring, evaluation and reporting

(a) Effectiveness of the monitoring system; (b) Flexibility or adaptability of control mechanisms for

measuring performance / implementation; (c) Measuring nothing or everything; (d) Lack of adequate resources to ensure effective monitoring

process; and (e) Burdensome data collection; and (f) Effectiveness of punitive measures.

Now that we have dealt with the literature review, we will look at the case studies which are intended to surface some of the practical issues and also to surface issues that may not have been raised in the interviews that were carried out.

7.2 Case Studies

7.2.1 The approach adopted on the case studies

I decided on case studies because I intended to reveal some of the practices that might not have surfaced from the literature review. I did not expect that the literature review would surface all the practices necessarily – bearing in mind that some of the issues in the literature may be limited to theoretical understanding only. The interviews that will be reported on later would only reflect bits and pieces of information. The aim is that these would be used to provide more insight that could be used in the answering the research question. The aim is not to review the correctness or otherwise of the practices that were adopted but to pick up some useful information.

I tended to concentrate on the cases that I had first hand experience on (an instance of participant-observation) because I could use all that information with no speculation in trying to guess the meanings as the case would be otherwise. For instance Weick (1993) was concerned about the validity of the data that was used in his case study on the Mann Gulch Fire Disaster. Had he been there, probably he would have reflected differently on some of the things. With limited time I did not have to set appointments with people to get this information. At the same time I am not necessarily claiming that I saw it all despite being there, so if time were sufficient I would ask some of the people who were involved to add some of their observations.


Copyright UCT

- 87 -


On deciding which case studies to report on, I looked at the nature of initiatives / projects/programmes/PIPs that could be projectised. This follows one of the initiatives that the CDC had been painfully tying to implement. (I used the term “painfully” because this is one of the initiatives that have not really delivered what it was intended to – being poorly implemented!) I figured that the nature of things that we implement is actually different. Putting that in project management terms, we deal with different types of projects (I refer to projects because programmes, which have defined start but no defined end could also be broken down into a series of small projects, which have a defined start and defined end with clear deliverables.) The definitions that I used were based on the work of Frigenti and Comninos (1999). These different types of projects are shown in Figure 20.

Figure 20: Different types of projects (Frigenti and Comninos, 1999.)

My view was that if we are dealing with projects of different types we should have considered different approaches in implementing them. I therefore decided on cases that span across these different types of projects just to pick up how they were implemented. (If I had time I would have looked at least three projects in each category to ensure repeatability and therefore confirmability of the findings. But, nevertheless, this will not necessarily compromise these outcomes because for now I will be reflecting on specific case studies individually). The projects that I chose for the case studies are presented in Table 8.

Quest • Business improvement • Product development

Fog • Pure r• Change

esearch

s initiative• First-time

projects

Painting by numbers

• Construction /engineering

• High certainty projects

Movie • Film

production • Systems

development

Project management processes and tools not well developed

Project objectives not clear

Project management processes and tools

well developed

Project objectives

clear

Copyright UCT

- 88 -

Table 8: The projects that I used in the case studies.(Table adapted from Frigenti and Comninos, 1999.)

CASE STUDY TYPE OF PROJECT

GENERAL FEELING ABOUT THIS TYPE OF

PROJECT

COMMENT

Learning from Road Construction

Painting by numbers

• We know what our destination is;

• We are confident of getting there.

The project was not new to the CDC as well as its implementation process. The CDC and its project managers had implemented a number of these before.

The Restructuring Process in the CDC

Quest • We know what our destination is, but we are not entirely sure how to get there.

The CDC had a very good sense of what it needed to achieve after the restructuring process. But, because it had never undertaken this process before, it was not clear what needed to happen to get there or how it would achieve its goals.

Implementing a Balance Score-card (BSC) approach

Movie • We are not sure what our final destination will be;

• Once we have some idea we will know how to get there.

The CDC had some Performance Management System (PMS) in place. The introduction of the BSC approach was an improvement of a system that was in place at the time. It was not 100% clear what this new system would deliver to the CDC, i.e. besides the expectations.

Getting on with the Supply Chain Management (SCM) Approach

Fog • We are not sure where we are going;

• We are also not sure how to get there

The SCM concept was introduced for the first time in the country in the public sector. No-one in the CDC had ever been exposed to it.

7.2.2 Learning from road construction - Painting by Numbers type project

In response to its mandate to develop and manage the Coega IDZ, the CDC is developing a number of roads and other necessary infrastructure around the IDZ. This is based on the projected investor requirements. Neptune Road is one of the main roads that run through the Coega IDZ. Before this road was built, conceptual and feasibility studies were carried within the CDC on how it would serve the needs of the IDZ. This was followed by a confirmation of a type of a road to be built. The Executive Manager for Infrastructure Development (EM:ID) assigned this road to the Project Manager (PM) to execute it.


Copyright UCT

- 89 -

The PM developed a plan indicating how this project was going to be executed and identifying resources requirements. All the discussions about his plans and what was to be delivered were between him and EM:ID. He identified a need for detailed studies on various aspects of the road (transportation studies, soil mechanics, environmental studies, socio-political issue, economic issues, land-surveying, etc.) to be carried out. Documents requesting for proposals (RFP) were prepared, highlighting what was required by the CDC. Adverts were issued inviting knowledgeable consultants to submit their proposals on how they would carry out these various work packages, how much it would cost and when they were likely to complete the assignments. Consultants meeting the adjudication criteria were awarded the contracts. During these studies the consultants were allowed to ask questions not only about that phase of the project but also about the planning phase (the previous phase) and the design phase (the following phase). Studies were completed as agreed, with minor modifications here and there. Upon completing the studies another consultant, a Road Engineer, was appointed to carry out the detailed road design (structural and geometrical design) using the information obtained from the previous detailed studies. Also this service provider could ask questions about the previous and the following phases. Once the designs were completed, tender documents were prepared for contractors. The contractors were appointed using a similar procedure as above. The contractor started with the construction using instruction from the Road Engineer. The Road Engineer supervised the works on site instituting modifications where necessary within certain limits. All the major changes were discussed with the CDC’s Project Manager before they were effected, who in turn discussed them with EM:ID. During construction the contractor had to observe a number of requirements; environmental, social, contractual, legal, etc. Failure to observe these could have led to the termination of the contract. The contractor needed to review a number of design related issues and also concerned himself about the usability of the road. Upon completion of the works, the CDC’s Project Manager satisfied himself with the quality of the deliverable, seeing if the specifications were met. He then received drawings showing what had been constructed, including all the modifications. (These were As-built Drawings together with a Close-out Report, reflecting on how the road was constructed.) The contractor then handed the finished road the CDC Project Manager, signifying completion of the implementation process. Throughout this process the PM was communicating with the EM:ID who assessed the performance of the PM throughout. So following the well known procedures, the Neptune Road was completed as scheduled, without surprises.


Copyright UCT

- 90 -

7.2.3 The Restructuring Process in the CDC – The Quest Project In the process of developing the Coega IDZ, the CDC underwent a number of phase changes: the Planning Phase, the Design & Construction Phase; the Investment Promotion Phase (the current phase); and the Zone Operations Phase. These phases overlapped to a large extent. The only thing that signified a particular phase from the other was the intensity of particular activities that were carried out. So far the change from one phase to the next has been triggered by the CEO who demanded certain activities and deliverables to be undertaken. The change from the Design & Construction Phase to Investment Promotion Phase was also initiated by the CEO, responding to some pressures to have signed-up investors in the IDZ. The need for the CDC to attract investors has always been there – as this is a means to an end for the CDC (the end being improvement of socio-economic status primarily in the Eastern Cape). Having to deal with pressures from some of the stakeholders and from the Board, the CEO and some Executive Managers identified a need to respond to this pressure. They worked on a plan which essentially looked at what the intended outcomes should be. The number of changes that needed to be put in place organisation-wide, particularly on resource allocation, could be referred to as restructuring. But because of negative connotations associated with this term it was not used but organisational reconfiguration. Having the plan been completed, three individuals were identified to implement it (This was called the Strategy Implementation Group – “the SIG”). I was one of those people. The group leader was identified by the CEO. A meeting was convened by the CEO between him and the SIG where he explained his expectations. Not too much was said about the background and the full planning process was not divulged – but just “enough” information to get the SIG going with its assignment. Essentially the problem statement was fairly straight forward and was introduced along these lines: “The CDC cannot continue doing things the way it has been doing. There is a need to pay more attention on attracting investors as the CDC cannot justify any more the monies it is getting without showing some return on that investment. If things continue this way, people may reach a conclusion that we are building a white elephant. So in order to address these problems there are changes that need to take place and here they are...” A plan was presented which showed a number of individuals to be re-allocated; the new posts required; and the posts that were to be redundant. Our task was to implement it. We were requested to slow down on some of the things that we were doing as our day-to-day activities and to focus on this new assignment.


Copyright UCT

- 91 -

We set off to plan our approach and were convinced that this initiative was going to work. We identified sub-deliverables, milestones, and activities to be undertaken to achieve those milestones. Thereafter a project schedule was developed. We subdivided tasks among ourselves and set off to implement them – starting with low “hanging fruits”. As we went about with our implementation, we were less concerned about the primary justification for the decision to reconfigure, but just to implement the plan while ensuring that negative impacts were minimised or eliminated altogether. How we communicated with people was important. We held regular meetings with CEO and at times with the Executive Management Committee, reporting on the progress. The execution process, which started off smoothly was becoming more and more difficult with time. It was becoming clear that the information that we received earlier was insufficient. We needed justification for some of the issues that were decided upon during the planning stage, which we managed to get - with difficulty because of its sensitivity. We reached a stage where certain decisions needed to be taken by top management before we could execute them – as they affected some of the Executive Managers. This is where things started to slow down as we were dealing with “externalities” – things that were outside our control. By that time the implementation process was very slow - the momentum dropped, enthusiasm waned, and the focus started to be diluted. The SIG also started to cease operating as a coherent group. Towards the end, by the time we went to present the work to the Board, only two of us were still operating as full members of the SIG. In the end we managed to deliver on what we were requested to do with no incidents that arose directly from our actions. We received a good feedback from the organisation but with some criticism on poor communication at times and a need to improve on change management. This is how the execution of the restructuring process took place in the CDC.

7.2.4 Implementing Balanced Scorecard Approach– The Movie Project

In the process of developing the Coega IDZ, the CDC had to develop a number of systems – administrative and for managing the IDZ. The system to be developed is dictated by the needs at the time which could be immediate or futuristic. The CDC needed to ensure that it measured its performance effectively and that it was informed by the outcomes of that process when paying out bonuses to the members of staff. A decision was taken to adopt and to implement a Balanced Scorecard (BSC) approach. When this decision was taken there was some system in place that was used for assessing people’s performance but was too subjective


Copyright UCT

- 92 -

and there was no uniformity on what people were assessed on. So the implementation of the BSC was to improve that situation. Having the decision been taken by the CEO to implement the BSC approach, a team of three people was identified to implement the system and I was one those people. Before this team was formed one of the team members had been involved in the planning process where he identified a need to get assistance of a Consultant. We (as the implementers) were briefed by the CEO who requested us to drop everything else that we were busy with and to pay full attention to this new assignment. This followed concerns raised by the assigned team leader that the time within which we were requested to execute this assignment, which was about one month, was very short and that dedication by team members was crucial. The Consultant took us through the intricacies of the BSC indicating where it came from, its underlying philosophy, its objectives, and how it should be implemented. So in other words we received some high level training on it. When this was completed a high level design of the roll-out plan was undertaken. Tasks that needed to be carried during the implementation process were identified. We divided these among ourselves. We also put dead lines for the identified deliverables. The role of the Consultant was mainly to guide us on implementing the BSC and not to advise us the objectives that we should be pursing as an organisation or on the weights that needed to be assigned to various measurements. The implementation included interacting with various Business Units (BUs). The Consultant was involved in the initial stages of this process and then left the team to continue with the assignment. He, however, was available for questions. He was also called upon from time to time, when the presentations were made to the Executive Management and to the Board. During the implementation process the team was very concerned about the full roll-out process. It developed a quasi-operational plan. It worked on policies and procedures that needed to be put in place to ensure continued implementation by Business Units. It developed some of the tools for measuring some of the aspects of the BSC. These included Maturity Models, and questionnaires for 3600 reviews. Throughout the question on why the BSC came into being was never an issue. In other words the main issues were about the implementation process. There were very few meetings that were held with the CEO to report on the progress. The monitoring of progress was mainly done by some team members. At the beginning of this process the team members were focussed and enthusiastic but with time this enthusiasm dwindled. This followed difficulties in getting the BUs to deliver on their parts. The BUs were not forthcoming with the required information and it was difficult for the team to force them because those


Copyright UCT

- 93 -

deliverables were actually supposed to come from the Executive Managers. Typical things that they needed to deliver on included development of individuals’ BSCs, and identification and development of systems that were required to capture information on performance. This difficulty was brought about by power relations between the team and the BUs. The team had limited powers. The least that the team could do was to encourage BUs, offering help where necessary. The focus of the team started to shiftr away from this assignment because time passed with no meaningful action. In the end we lost one team member because he was focussing on other things. The BSC approach was ultimately rolled-out and workshopped throughout the organisation. Presentations were made to the Board on how the systems would work and how it was linked to the bonus system. Although the system has been in place for while it is still unsatisfactory. It is not as effective as it could be. The questions that one finds asking are: is it because there is no one who is running with it, managing it almost on daily basis? Is it the poor alignment of measurements? There is something missing with it!

7.2.5 Getting on with Supply Chain Management – The Fog Project The National Treasury undertook a decision that all public entities must implement the Supply Chain Management (SCM) approach. The main reason behind this was to address problems associated with poor planning, leading to assets not being fully utilised. An example of this would be community halls that are built but with no plans in place on how they would be furnished nor how they would be run. The CDC, being a public entity, undertook to implement the SCM. Finance Business Unit was asked by the CEO to see this done. Finance undertook to respond to this need but realised that it did not know much about this system as much as it was not clear exactly on what needed to be achieved. Because this was identified as a long-term programme, they sought to employ someone who would have been knowledgeable in this field. That attempt did not yield much because most of the respondents did not appear to know much about SCM. Having these plans failed the CEO was getting impatient with the pace at which things were happening. By that time Finance was considering outsourcing the entire process. Before those plans were executed the CEO decided to appoint one of the managers at Finance as a Manager: Supply Chain and was tasked to implement this initiative. So what this did was to devolve this responsibility to a specific person who was asked to acquire the necessary knowledge in that field and implement the system. It took some time for the appointed Manager: Supply Chain to get to where he needed to be before rolling out some of the activities. He devised a plan on how this could be implemented. He proposed the formation of a SCM Committee


Copyright UCT

- 94 -

comprising of about 7 individuals from various BUs and I was part of that committee. The SCM Committee met and designed the approach that would be adopted in assisting with the implementation. The Committee grappled with some of fundamental issues: what its real role was - to implement SCM or to assist the Manager: Supply Chain in implementing SCM; what it was required to do at that time - to develop a SCM Policy or a SCM Framework? The Committee also felt that the rationale for implementing SCM was not strong enough. It felt that just doing it because of compliance issues would threaten the sustainability of this initiative. It then went back to the justification for implementing the SCM and decided to modify it, stressing on a business oriented rationale as the primary motive. It considered that implementing SCM would assist in addressing some of the management problems that the CDC was faced with including non-interconnectedness of some of its procurement processes which needed the development of intelligent systems. The Committee studied the requirements of government and decided to expand them to address some business imperatives of the CDC. It then undertook to design what needed to be put in place to achieve its plan. It undertook to develop a SCM Framework Plan. During all this time the Committee did not present its plans to anyone. However, from time to time the CEO received informal reports on the progress. All the changes on the strategy and decisions on focus areas were conceived within the Committee; checked within using devil’s advocate; decided upon and implemented by the Committee. The discussions by the Committee oscillated between the fundamental needs of implementing SCM and how it would be rolled-out. The Committee was concerned about the probability of its plans being out of line with industry norms so it decided to invite an “expert” in the field to listen to its approach. The “expert” was impressed with the approach the CDC had adopted. This encouraged the Committee to proceed with its plans. The process of developing the SCM Framework proved to be a daunting task, with lack of certainty on what may be most appropriate for the organisation and how the multitude of issues that were unearthed would be addressed. This included a need to develop new systems, new policies, new procedures, and assigning new responsibilities to some individuals. The enthusiasm from the Committee members started to show signs of stressing – poor attendance of meetings, slow pace in delivering on set tasks. But despite that it managed to complete the first draft of the SCM Framework. The Framework was presented to the Executive Management Committee (EXMA) and it was approved. During the discussions leading to approval it was clear that some of the members


Copyright UCT

- 95 -

did not have a full appreciation and understanding of the process. Their main concern was the roll-out process of that plan. When the Framework was completed and presented to EXMA, the feeling within the Committee members was that they had delivered on their assignment and wondered if they would continue to exist as a committee as they did not know what the next task was. In other words, they had a psychological shutdown. It was, however, indicated that the development of the Framework was the first phase and that the next phase was the actual implementation of that Framework. The task of the chairperson of the Committee was then to resuscitate the team’s enthusiasm using the notion of a sigmoid curve – indicating that the first phase signified the completion of the first curve and that there was a need to get to the next curve (on implementation) before the point of inflection was reached. There was fear that there would be a total collapse of the entire drive if that point were to be reached. This is where things were at when this dissertation was compiled. As the chairperson of the SCM Committee I wondered, “Will this team get onto the second sigmoid curve or not? Should I propose new fresh members or should I continue with this one?”

7.2.6 Comparative analysis of the Case Studies

I conducted a high level comparative analysis of the case studies to see if there were any distinct differences or similarities regarding the manner in which the implementation process was carried out. This is carried out as brief notes below. Planning and Process Design

PbN: (PbN = painting by Numbers). The planning and design processes are

carried out by different people from those doing the actual implementation.

Quest: The planning is carried out by a different person from the implementer.

The design is carried out by the implementer. Movie: The planning is carried out by a different person from the implementer.

The design is carried out by the implementer. Fog: The planning, design and execution are carried out by the same person or

group of people.


Copyright UCT

- 96 -

The Nature of the Implementer PbN: One person, focused, could seek assistance of others. Implementer did not

lose the drive to complete the assignment. Quest: Small group of people. Focussed and encouraged at the beginning but

prone to losing focus and drive as they find difficulties in getting the actors to carry out their contributions.

Movies: Small group of people. Focussed and encouraged at the beginning but

prone to losing focus and drive as they find difficulties in getting the actors to carry out their contributions.

Fog: Larger group of people. Visionary, patience, tenacity and focused. Group

prone to losing drive due to difficulty of the tasks. Monitoring and reporting

PbN: Measures are absolute and predetermined; monitored closely e.g. cost,

time and quality; an independent monitor who is strict in ensuring achievement of the agreed targets.

Quest: Measures not absolute but broad targets agreed upon. Overall process

monitored closely by an independent person. Certain agreed deliverables monitored but not very tightly.

Movie: Measures not absolute but broad targets agreed upon. Overall process

monitored closely by an independent person. Certain agreed deliverables monitored but not very tightly.

Fog: Measures are not clear and therefore not absolute. General developments

of events monitored. The grand plan is considered as the deliverable, most monitoring carried out by the implementer, external monitor offers support and acts as a sounding board.


PbN: Implementation process is carried out as per specifications with minor

modifications. Could be outsourced because the Client (CDC) is well knowledgeable about all the processes and the deliverables. Limited consultation with other processes required.


Copyright UCT

- 97 -

Quest: Implementation process carried out in-house. Lot of consultation, seeking clarity and considering modifications on the preceding stages, and less about the following stages.

Movie: Implementation process carried out in-house. Lot of concerns and debates

regarding the following processes/stages, and less on the preceding processes.

Fog: Implementation must be carried out in-house because of lack of clarity on

the processes and the exact deliverables, therefore evolving. Lot of questions about the preceding processes/stages and the following processes/stages – questions about the correctness of the identified need and the sustainability of the roll-out plan – the ability for the actors to carry out their responsibilities.

The main issue that appears to stand out are the levels of necessary consultations to confirm certain issues. With PbN projects what needs to happen is fairly clear therefore necessitating less consultations. On the other end with Fog projects there is a lot of oscillation that is necessary between different stages because things evolve with time – leading what is referred to progressive development. I will refer to this process as “Firming Oscillation” because of the oscillation that is requiring firm up on certain issues. This phenomenon is depicted in Figures 19(a) to (d), reflecting the experiences with the Case Studies. The higher the degree of “Firming Oscillation” the longer it takes to implement the plans because of checking and rechecking that is necessary. If a “Firming Oscillation” that befits one type of a project is used on another project, that could lead to unsuccessful implementation. For instance, with the SCM project there was a pressure to implement things as though this was a PbN project. This was overcome by silent resistance. The other example is the time it took the officials to process applications for the IDZ. They were faced with a new policy which they didn’t know how to deal with. As a result, they delayed the decision making process which is normally a fairly straight forward process. At the time we (as the organisation) were confused and frustrated by this because we did not understand that by introducing new policies what used to be a PbN changes to Fog! Lack of appreciating this could lead to the use of incorrect performance measurements and may demoralise the implementer if those are not achieved despite his/her hard work.


Copyright UCT

- 98 -

Changes in the external or internal environment requiring to be responded to.

Inception

Planning

Design

Implementation

Usage

Time

Figure 21(a): “Firming Oscillation” for a straight forward (Painting by Numbers

type) project.


Inception

Planning

Design

Implementation

Usage

Time

Figure 21(b): “Firming Oscillations” for a Quest type project.


Copyright UCT

- 99 -


Inception

Planning

Design

Implementation

Usage

Time

Figure 21(c): “Firming Oscillation” for a Movie type project.


Inception

Planning

Design

Implementation

Usage

Time

Figure 21 (d): “Firming Oscillation” for a Fog type project.

The second notable phenomenon was the extent to which the implementers of the various projects lost the drive. It appears that the higher “Firming Oscillation”, the more susceptible people are to fatigue. This does not only affect the implementer(s) but also the actors – i.e. those who are at the receiving end. It is upon this that loss of momentum emerges – which is a barrier to successful implementation.

Also associated with this phenomenon is the number of people required to be involved in the implementation process. Moving from PbN to Fog the number of people required increases. This is necessary as things have to be looked at from different perspectives. The higher the number of active implementers, the better the process. Barrier to implementation would set in if few people were to be involved


Copyright UCT

- 100 -

in the Fog project – allocation of appropriate resources would be a problematic. Therefore it appears that the higher the degree of “Firming Oscillation” the higher the number of people needing to be involved in the implementation process. At the same time a very large group would retard progress.

The higher the variety, the more exposed and informed the person is about the organisational issues. The higher the variety, the easier and quicker it would be to deal with the “Firming Oscillation” as he/she would be exposed to the information required to execute the plan. This suggests that the Fog projects stand a better chance of success if they are run by well-exposed and well-informed people about general issues and about organisational processes. In a number of instances, especially at the CDC, people find it a lot easier to develop a system and implement it without workshopping it or soliciting people’s views about it. They avoid doing so because the process of involving people invariably increases the “Firming Oscillation”. And they feel that it takes time to complete the project. But that process in itself leads to poor implementation following a lack of buy-in.

The key issue here is that “Firming Oscillation” is a phenomenon that appears to affect the approach to be adopted in the implementation process. Understanding its behaviour would enhance an appreciation of what to expect during the implementation and therefore inform the planning process. It requires that this be taken into consideration during the planning stage.

7.3 The Interviews

7.3.1 The approach to unstructured interviews

While the literature review sought to reveal other people’s experiences on why implementation has been poor in other organisations, this does not automatically follow that similar issues would also affect the CDC. The question then became: how would I know which of those issues affect the CDC? As the CDC member of staff, who has been concerned about poor implementation, I had my own views about what the causes of poor implementation might be. I could have compared my observations against what is reported in the literature and then draw conclusions based on that. But that would have been problematic because that would presuppose that firstly my observations about poor implementation were correct; secondly that the list that I came up with was “absolutely” correct; and thirdly that I highlighted everything that should have been included on the list. In order to get around this problem I decided to conduct unstructured interviews within the organisation, to get other people’s perspectives so as to legitimise my observations.


Copyright UCT

- 101 -

(I have already explained under Section 6.4 why I decided on unstructured interviews so I will not repeat it here.) Within the time that I had I managed to interview seven people within the organisation. Two of them were Executive Managers and the rest were from middle management. These people came from different BUs; mixed genders; mixed age groups. I also included my observations of the situation in the CDC, thus making a total of eight. Because the intention was to find out more about the problems in the CDC, the interviews were limited to the CDC only. People from other organisation would have been useful in providing their experiences on how to deal with the identified problems. (This is a potential area for further research, i.e. to find out how the problems identified by the CDC are dealt with by organisations that are successful on implementation.) The interviews were started by ascertaining the impression that interviewees had about the level of implementation in the CDC. All of them concurred with a view that the CDC is poor on implementation. It was also stressed right at the beginning that there were no wrong or right answers and that all what was important was the true reflection of their views/impressions/experiences. The central questions that were asked were: (a) Why is the CDC so poor in implementing initiatives that have been decided

upon? (b) How could the situation be improved to ensure better performance in the

future? There were other interspersed questions as to drill down on some responses. The full responses to the interviews are presented as Appendix E. Some of the interviewees requested that their names not be divulged to protect their identity and this was agreed upon. So instead of revealing people’s names I referred to them as A1 to A8. A summary of the responses is presented in the next section.

7.3.2 Reporting on unstructured interviews

The same structure that was used in the literature review will be used here to enable ease of comparing what emerged out of these two processes. The planning process: Almost all the interviewees indicated that the CDC is poor in planning and that this is one of the contributing factors to poor implementation. A8 raised that in most instances the CDC does some planning but its approach to planning is very narrow, it’s too abrupt, it’s too haphazard, is not holistic, and it changes direction too often for one to appreciate its strategic direction. A1, A2, A3 A4, A6 saw this as lack of proper planning. A4 went as far as stating that, “In fact there is no planning but fire fighting. We look at short-term interventions; crisis management is used to


Copyright UCT

- 102 -

introduce things rather than long-term planning”. Because of lack of proper planning, A2 and A5 felt that the CDC finds it difficult to prioritise. Without prioritisation it would be unable to focus on specific targeted programmes, as noted by A1 and A6. With no focus people are prone to doing many things at once, as noted by A1. To that A6 also raised that “things are manageable but we seem to be chasing everything, even things that don’t look very important in the bigger scheme of things.” This led A5 to wonder if it’s necessary to implement all these things where she stated that, “I think we make ourselves busy by implementing all these nuisance programmes”. This justified the concerns raised by A1 and A6 that “everyone is running around and we don’t seem to have enough time to sit down and do things.” Because of this A1, A2 and A6 raised that initiatives are started but are left hanging as priorities change; they are not nurtured and seen to completion. This is where poor implementation sets in. In the end poor planning appears to be the main trigger to a number of these occurrences which then lead to observed poor implementation. In summary, the issues associated with planning that have been mentioned as barriers to implementation are: • Poor planning; • Inability to prioritise; • Lack of focus; • Doing too many things at once; and • Leaving things unfinished. We will now look at issues associated with the implementer.

The Implementer(s): With respect to implementer(s), A7 sees them as lacking enthusiasm at times and this is caused by a number of factors. A1 also highlighted that people lack commitment and dedication. A8 mentioned that “people must find zest in what they do”. A8 further raised that “earnest interest and the drive is what makes people perform to the best of their ability – implementing things they are responsible for and seeing them through! It’s just that we don’t know how to take people where they can excel.” A8 and A7 raised that the issue of knowledge gap has also contributed in causing poor implementation. Without the requisite knowledge, people find it difficult to do what they are supposed to. Fearing to fail, having exposed themselves by attempting to implement, they normally prefer to delay implementation until such knowledge has been gathered. During this period no implementation takes place. A8 raised that the organisation has been rather unsympathetic to such situations


Copyright UCT

- 103 -

where he raises that “unfortunately the organisation is intolerant to such approaches – it just wants implementation”. Therefore in summary the issues associated with the implementer that have been raised as barriers to implementation in this sub-section are: • Lack of enthusiasm; • Lack of commitment and dedication; and • Knowledge gap.

And what has been raised by the interviewees regarding the process design? This is covered next. The process design: Besides A8 who raised instances where implementer(s) do things without ascertaining exact needs of the beneficiaries first, no other issues were raised. This would, however, not necessarily be an impediment to implementation. Therefore I did not list any pertinent issues in this regard from the interviews. Information sharing through effective communication: A1 to A7 highlighted that poor communication is one of the barriers to implementation. At times people are not clear of what they need to do or are not informed at all and end up not doing anything about what needed to be implemented. Mixed messages that arise when there is double mandating, mostly by the CEO, is a source of confusion that leads to non-implementation as raised by A6. When double mandating occurs the parties involved don’t know who actually is doing what and things end up falling in between the cracks. A3, A6 and A7 noted that communication is so bad to such an extent that even the corporate strategy is not known by the decision-making structures such as the Procurement Committee, the Projects Approval Committee, etc. This may have led A1 and A6 to raise concerns about the lack of singleness of purpose as a barrier to implementation. Where there is no shared meaning people drift into different directions as the smoke jumpers did in the Mann Gulch Fire Disaster (Weick, 1993). For people to understand what they are supposed to do, it has to be communicated clearly to them. Therefore poor communication is one of the major causes of poor implementation. In summary the key points that come out this sub-section as barriers to implementation are: • Poor communication; and • Double mandating.


Copyright UCT

- 104 -

Now that there is an understanding of the barriers associated with sharing of information, what are those associated with the environment within which the strategy is implemented? This is looked at in the next sub-section. The role of implementers, actors and the organisational environment: A1 highlighted problems with the current organisational structure. His view was that the existing flat democratic structure reduced hierarchical trust and now there is no discipline of doing things in the organisation. He raised a need for a company manual to be developed where various operational procedures would be codified. His main contention was that the organisation lacks the discipline of doing things as requested. He further highlighted that people lack commitment and that they need singleness of purpose and dedication. A2 also raised the need to discipline people. A4 felt that attitudes are a big problem. A8 felt that the attitude that people display could be caused by the fact they may be traumatised by their line managers and concluded that leadership also plays a role in how people feel and ultimately how they behave. A6 raised that the CDC is not singing from the same song-sheet. This was also reiterated by A8 who raised lack of shared meaning as one of the barriers to effective implementation. A6 revealed that while people love to work for the CDC, the environment in which they work is not conducive. Perhaps this is what led A8 to highlight that “in most instances we think that we own people whom we work with, and think that by virtue of our positions we could command them to do as we want!” He further alluded to the importance of leadership where he stated that “a leader or a line manager is expected to guide you to success when you are having difficulties – but in most cases they tend to guide you to the door”. It may be understandable why they behave so because A3 and A4 stated that the champions for these programmes are not accountable. Therefore if the line managers do not know much about what people they are accountable for do, how would they assist them in times of difficulty? In the end what we could summarise the main issues from this sub-section as: • Lack of discipline to implement; • Lack of commitment; • Lack of shared meaning, singleness of purpose; and • Poor leadership on execution. The implementation process: A4 observed that people talk and talk but no much action. People have their own views about what is best and end up with competing “bests” but with no execution afterwards. A7 also raised that people talk a lot about things - but there remains too much a gap between knowledge and the actual doing.


Copyright UCT

- 105 -

A3 views that in implementing things, the CDC is practicing continuous fixing and not continuous improvement. A2 and A5 note that people are busy with a number of things at once. A7 and A8 raised that people participate in these initiatives just to comply because, according to A5, things are just imposed unto them. The consequence of that according to A7 is that when the sponsor disappears the initiative also dies. Probably this is what led to A3’s observation where she mentioned that things are not done according to plans where planning takes place. A8 appears to be sympathetic about this situation where he raised that their level of co-operation is low because people are busy chasing their own tails – implementing their own programmes which they may also be struggling to get going because people who are supposed to be contributing there are also busy chasing their own tails – a vicious cycle!

A5 felt that at times things that are implemented are too complex for people to follow and conform. She cited the Standard Formats for CDC’s documents as an example. She felt that while that is the case things are imposed unto people. A8 felt that imposing things unto people breeds natural resistance – not that people are resisting change per se but that they don’t want to be pushed around and would therefore not co-operate just to stand their ground, forcing recognition. In the end the implementation process in the CDC appears to be affected by the following: • The gap between theory and practice, the apparent inability for people to

convert the “talk” into meaningful action is the main issue; • A number of things that people do at once and they agree to participate in

those programmes as a compliance issue; and • Things are imposed unto people. Now, what is the situation with the monitoring and evaluation? Were there any issues identified with it? The next section looks into this issue. Monitoring and evaluation: A2 stated that “what gets tracked gets done”. A1, A2, A3, A6 and A7 raised issues about the effectiveness of the performance management system, indicating that it contributes towards poor implementation in the CDC. A3 raised that there is poor monitoring of performance in the CDC and that effective reporting is lacking. A7 also raised the fact that the CDC is lacking in making follow ups. This might have led to the champions for these programmes not to be accountable, as stated by A4. One of the contributing factors, as stated by A7, could be that the vertical relationship between the sponsor and the implementer


Copyright UCT

- 106 -

is lax. A3 felt that the extent to which issues of performance are closely monitored is limited by good faith, and this is observed at all levels within the organisation. A6 felt that there are problems with the CDC’s Balanced Scorecard (BSC) as its measures are very broad. A2 confirms this by stating that the CDC is not tracking critical indicators. It is this observation that led A1 to state that the CDC’s current BSC is useless as there is no effective control on key issues. A6 felt that the measures are not realistic and that they do not cascade down or interlink with each other. The usefulness of the CDC’s BSC is also hampered by the fact that people are allowed to get away with non-performance as observed by A4. A4 also raised issues with the apparent inconsistency in reprimanding non-performance. A3 stated that the system allows unequal treatment of people on non-performance, where others are allowed a leeway on the same ‘offence’. She added that other BUs are a law unto themselves. Over and above this A4 is of a view that the Performance Management System (PMS) is not preached from top; is not communicated well enough; is not stressed; is not well understood even by those at the top therefore would be unable to make others perform; and is not taken seriously by Executive Managers (EMs) as they appear too casual about it. A7 felt that punitive measures on non-performance are lacking. In fact he does not see the entire system to be assisting at all in encouraging performance where he raised that the Disciplinary Process is reactive. It does not assist in correcting or assisting one to improve implementation. With the PMS, the time horizon between assessments is too long and this is problematic as it does not give one a chance to correct mistakes timeously. A4 is also of the opinion that the CDC’s BSC is not strong enough to deal with unbecoming behaviours. A7 raised concerns about inadequacy of incentives to the implementer upon implementing a particular programme successfully. In fact he raised that “there’s no carrot here, only a stick!” These confirm the strong views by the interviewees about the non-effectiveness of the CDC’s PMS. As the say goes “what gets measured gets done”. The non-effectiveness of the PMS allows people to get away with non-performance and does not assist people to assess the effectiveness of the implemented systems. In summary, the issues associated with monitoring and valuation that were considered by the interviewees as being barriers to implementation are: • Ineffectiveness of the Performance Management System; • Poor reporting; • Inconsistency in addressing non-performance; and


Copyright UCT

- 107 -

• Inadequacy of incentives. Key issues that were identified by the interviewees as barriers to implementation were presented under the sub-sections above. All these issues will now be brought together to provide a consolidated view.

7.3.3 Consolidating key issues from the unstructured interviews

The key issues that were identified in the previous section following the unstructured interviews will be presented in this section. These have been consolidated in Table 9 to provide a complete picture. The framework that was used when they were developed will still be followed. Table 9: Consolidation of issues that are highlighted in the unstructured

interviews as barriers to implementation.



The Planning Process (a) Poor planning; (b) Inability to prioritise; (c) Lack of focus; (d) Doing too many things at once; and (e) Leaving things unfinished.


(a) Lack of enthusiasm; (b) Lack of commitment and dedication; and (c) Knowledge gap

Process Design None


(a) Poor communication; and (b) Double mandating.


(a) Lack of discipline to implement; (b) Lack of commitment; (c) Lack of shared meaning, singleness of purpose; and (d) Poor leadership on execution.


(a) The gap between theory and practice, the apparent inability for people to convert the “talk” into meaningful action is the main issue;

(b) A number of things that people do at once and they agree to participate in those programmes as a compliance issue; and

(c) Things are imposed unto people.


(a) Ineffectiveness of the Performance Management System; (b) Poor reporting; (c) Inconsistency in addressing non-performance; (d) Inadequacy of incentives.


Copyright UCT

- 108 -

7.3.4 The structured interviews - questionnaires Earlier on, I mentioned that I would be reporting on unstructured interviews. But, following some historiography, I realised it would enhance the richness of data if the outcomes of the structured interview that was once carried out, were to be brought up. A survey was carried out late 2004 to solicit the reasons behind the CDC’s failure to implement initiatives. The outcomes of that survey are presented as Appendix F. A comparison between the outcomes of that survey and the structured one that was carried out under the current investigations indicated that some of the items that were raised then were still raised in this survey. However, there were some items that were not identified in this survey that were raised then. Although there was a temptation to include those results in this survey, I decided not to do so. The reason was that I could not ascertain from people if those reasons were still valid. So I did not combine the lists. The main issue here is just to highlight the similarities between these outcomes.

7.4 Overview of the Chapter

This chapter mainly focussed on addressing the research problem. Literature review was conducted to surface what has been reported on reasons of poor implementation. These reasons were identified and listed. This was followed by case studies which highlighted how implementation has been carried out in the CDC. It also brought up a need to pay attention to “Firming Oscillations”. Outcomes of unstructured interviews were presented where a number of reasons believed to be prime in causing the observed poor implementation were brought up. Now that this information has been presented, how was it used to formulate the research answer? This is covered in the next chapter.


Copyright UCT

- 109 -

CHAPTER 8

It’s not so much about the ‘yes’ or ‘no’ in the answer, but the reasons or rationale

behind that ‘yes’ or a ‘no’!

8 SURFACING REASONS TO POOR IMPLEMENTATION

The research question has two parts. The first part sought to find out reasons behind the CDC’s poor implementation of PIPs. The second part sought to ascertain means by which the implementation of PIPs could be improved in the future. In this chapter I will be focusing on the first part of the research question. Specifically I will be covering the process that I followed to arrive at the answer to that question. The second part to the research question will be addressed in Chapter 9.

8.1 The General Overview of the Process

The literature review highlighted a number of potential issues that could lead to poor implementation. These may or may not apply to the CDC. But it assisted in explaining why certain things happen in the CDC. It could also be used as a checklist when planning the implementation of “new” initiatives – when identifying potential barriers to successful implementation. The Case Studies revealed that initiatives / PIPs that are implemented in the CDC could be defined as different types of projects: Painting by Numbers, Quest, Movie, and Fog. Each of these appeared to be associated with a particular phenomenon that I referred to as “Firming Oscillation” which indicates the level or frequency of consultations that implementers go through different stages of conceptualisation and post-implementation stage. “Firming Oscillations” would enhance the planning process. Failure to recognise these could lead to poor implementation in that the necessary level of consultations may be compromised, thus affecting the quality of the implementation process. The Case Studies also revealed the extent to which the CEO gets involved in deciding which initiative to be pursued.

The unstructured interviews yielded a list of about 21 items that were identified as reasons for poor implementation in the CDC. I regarded the 21 items as being too may issues to be pursued for consideration and needed to be narrowed down to few items that I considered key – the 20% which according to the Pareto Principle would yield 80% of effective changes. How were these identified in such a way that biases were avoided? The process that was followed to address that is elucidated below.


Copyright UCT

- 110 -

8.2 Arriving at Answer to the First Part of the Research Question

The 21 items that were identified from the unstructured interviews, the key issues from the case studies, and from the use of different sociological paradigms were used to address the first part of the research question.

I used an Affinity Diagram to reduce the number of items to be considered. In doing this I consolidated items that addressed more or less the same thing and I ended up with 11 categories. These items were then expressed as varying concepts. When people are requested to highlight problems, they have a tendency of not differentiating between problems and symptoms. Addressing a symptom does not imply that the problem would be addressed. Senge (2002) suggested “5 Whys” as a means of getting down to the root cause of a problem. The other alternative that could be used to sort these out, which I opted for, is the user of Interrelationship Diagraph. The reason for not using the “5 Whys” is that the answers to those would be speculative – being based on my interpretation. They would work best if they were addressed by the individuals who offered them in the first instance. But even then there is a chance that they would be speculative. The 11 items were then expressed as neutral varying categories and then used in an Interrelationship Diagraph to decide on the key problems (drivers) and key symptoms (outcomes). This is presented as Appendix G. The first 5 key drivers were: (a) Level of planning; (b) Effectiveness of communication; (c) Level of requisite knowledge (on implementation); (d) Level of discipline on implementation; and (e) Quality of leadership on implementation. The first 3 key outcomes were:

(a) Degree of focussing; (b) Level of enthusiasm, dedication, passion, and drive; and (c) Effectiveness of a monitoring system.

From these I then concluded that the main reasons that led to the observed poor implementation in the CDC are: (a) Poor planning; (b) Poor communication; (c) Lack of requisite knowledge on implementation; (d) Lack of discipline for implementation; and (e) Poor leadership on implementation.


Copyright UCT

- 111 -

I will elaborate further on these when dealing with the second part of the research question. Now that the reasons for poor implementation have been identified, the next question is: in what way could implementation in the CDC be ensured in future? This question will be addressed in the following chapter.


Copyright UCT

- 112 -

CHAPTER 9

9 ENSURING SUSTAINED IMPLEMENTATION

In the previous chapter I focussed on elaborating on how I addressed the first part of the research question. In this chapter I will be focussing on addressing the second part of the research question.

9.1 The Approach The CDC is experiencing problems currently with implementation. In other words there are issues that have been identified as being the main reasons leading to poor implementation. Considering that these are issues that were identified as being problematic currently I considered those issues as the first point of callas the organization moves forward. As Sandrock (2003) mentioned, after these bottlenecks have been addressed new bottlenecks will surface. This appreciates the fact that while addressing the identified problem areas does not imply that nothing further will have to be done in the future to improve the process further. In quality management terms, this would be referred to as continuous improvement. So having said so, the focus will be on the identified five key problem areas. Although I appreciate the systemic nature of occurrence of these issues, I chose to look at them individually to have a full appreciation of how they could be addressed in such a way that implementation is improved in the future. In doing this I asked the following questions:

(a) How do I know that the reasons raised as problematic areas are indeed problematic areas?

(b) What was wrong with them with respect to the CDC? (c) How were they supposed to look like in an “ideal” world? (d) What were the gaps between the observations and the “ideal” world? (e) How could those gaps be bridged, so that implementation is improved? The approach that I adopted in addressing these questions is mostly bordering along the Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) approach. However, I decided not to use SSM here because the focus was not to address different interpretations that people may have. The approach that was adopted is presented in Figure 22.


Copyright UCT

- 113 -

Figure 22: A schematic representation of the approach used in identifying means of

improving implementation in the future.

(3) How does it work in currently in

the “real” world?

(2) What is its “idealised” nature, or how does it work in a

“perfect” world?

(5) Address identified gaps and progress

towards idealised futureIdentify

Move to

Keep checking

(4) Compare and identify

gaps Current

unideal state

Idealised future state

(1) Identify the issue of

concern Identify

9.2 The Role of Requisite Knowledge

Success without prior thought or subsequent reflection does not help you to repeat the process or to improve on it, although it does get the problem moving. …….Hutchinson, 1989

In implementing PIPs there are two critical knowledge areas that need to be considered: knowledge of how the implementation process should be carried out and knowledge of the subject matter, i.e. knowledge on what is being implemented. For instance with implementation of PIPs such as TQM, one needs to know about the implementation process separately and also to know about TQM itself. Pfeffer and Sutton (1999: Lehmann and Richards, 2002) refer to the former knowledge area as “knowing-doing gap” where they raised that while most managers have knowledge of the best practices in their fields, their implementation is often problematic. This was witnessed by Chrisander (2005) with EU where he found that while the EU Commissioners could come up with laws, they could not implement them. The CDC has problems in both knowledge areas with respect to PIPs. This was raised by A4 in the interviews where she raised that “people talk and talk but with no much action”. A7 also highlighted that “people talk a lot about things – but there remains too much gap between knowledge and the actual doing”. With respect to the knowledge of the subject matter, the implementation of the Supply Chain Management (SCM) was confronted with


Copyright UCT

- 114 -

those problems where some individuals felt so much incapacitated that they were very reluctant in serving in the SCM Committee. This was the case also the problem confronted by the Chairpersons of some management structures where they felt incapacitated therefore leading to difficulties in getting them off the ground. Most authors e.g. Rizzuto (2003), Seraph et al (1989), Porter and Parker (1993), Yong and Wilkinson (2001) highlighted training as one of the success factors in implementing PIPs. I want to move away from emphasizing training as the most critical thing but rather the acquisition of requisite knowledge. The process of training does not guarantee any knowledge but a means by which it could be achieved. In the end what should be measured is the requisite knowledge. Hutchison (1989, Systal Class Notes Module 1, Reading 1) highlighted that “learning is not the same as studying, nor the same as training. It is bigger than both.” Requisite knowledge on the PIP to be implemented could be acquired through short-term training programmes or self-development. The need for this would best be determined by the implementer(s). This is similar to an attempt that was adopted by the Policy Review Group, where they identified a need for all the Committee Members to undertake a formal training on policy formulation so that they could be effective in what they were required to do. But of essence is a need for an organisation to satisfy itself that the person charged with the responsibility of implementing an initiative possesses the requisite knowledge to discharge that responsibility and allow him/her to pursue it if is found lacking. This would address concerns raised by A8 regarding lack of support in this regard. In what way could the “knowing-doing” gap be closed? Currently there is no formal course on implementation. There are formal courses on strategy formulation. There are courses on implementing infrastructure projects (Engineering courses for design and Building courses for construction) I have not come across a formal stand alone course on strategy/PIP implementation. The CDC would need to develop a course on implementation for its staff. (Further work is required in researching more about this.).

Belbin (1981) and Miller (2001) identified various role characters in implementation and identified importance of identifying the right team for implementation. Then following this the question that I asked myself was: Is it not possible that the CDC Team has a concentration of certain character roles? Is it not possible that we are running short of implementers in the team? This could also be explained by the fact that the first phases of the project were primarily planning and development where people with those skills were focussed on and are still dominant in the organisation. Unfortunately this warrants further investigation. If that is the case, then how would the CDC go about identifying an implementer? This is another challenge! In order for the CDC to improve its chances of being successful in implementation it must therefore ensure that requisite knowledge is acquired on the implementation process and also on the PIP being implemented. The more one acquires knowledge on


Copyright UCT

- 115 -

implementation, the better the chances of improving his/her planning capabilities. The next section covers planning into greater depths.

9.3 Effective Planning in Implementation Without a project plan the chances of achieving a successful project are virtually nil ….Frigenti and Comninos, 1999

In this section I will briefly touch on how poor planning was problematic in the CDC and how it manifested itself. But I will spend most of the time looking at how it could be improved in the future so as to assist the CDC in implementing its PIPs better. Planning! What is it and why was it considered to be problematic at the CDC? The planning process is preceded by a clear identification or statement on what is to be achieved (Faull et al, 2004; Mann and Kehoe, 1995). This would culminate into clear articulation of a need being addressed and what the objectives or goals of the undertaking are. This is followed “by thinking ahead on how to achieve the selected goals” (Frigenti and Comminos, 1999:220). This would entail identification of tasks to be carried out; identification of resources to execute those tasks; other resource requirements (e.g. tools equipment, funds); order and time lines by which certain deliverables have to be achieved (including small wins planning and communication strategies). This would also include creating measurement standards against which to measure progress towards those goals. This is followed by aligning the plan with other operational processes (2GC, 2003; Keating et al, 1999), including other initiatives that are ongoing and those being planned. The main issue would be the assessment of systemic impacts of the proposed plan on other systems and processes. How the plan would fit with the culture of the organisation (2GC, 2003) also needs to be considered. As Brumley (2003) and Hambrick and Cannela (1989) stated, potential barriers to implementation together with other potential risk areas have to be assessed and mitigated against. This is what I consider as the full planning process and I don’t see it as a linear process but iterative. In other words, issues have to be visited and revisited until everything “fits well”. It would, however, not be possible to plan all the projects to the umpteenth level, e.g. when dealing with fog type projects. But despite this there needs to be a concerted effort to developing plans using the available information and noting assumptions made. Poor planning has been reported by Sandy (1991: Smit, 2003) and Monash University (2003) as one of the reasons for poor implementation. I regard poor planning as an instance where any of the steps identified above has not been carried out correctly or not carried out at all. CDC was mentioned by as being poor in planning. Following that, which of the steps identified above are they missing? None of the interviewees identified a particular step as missing. They identified things which according to them indicate that planning is poor. These are: planning is haphazard; there is no prioritisation; plans


Copyright UCT

- 116 -

change so many times; there are many initiatives that people are busy with at the same time; apparent lack of focus; resources not utilised optimally on initiatives; and inability to finish off things that have been started because of change of plans and new initiatives taking precedence. Now, none of the respondents indicated that planning does not take place. I could also account that planning does take place but not sufficient. But where is the problem? The CDC’s planning process does not appear to be integrated and is also not holistic. In most instances it does not take into the programmes into consideration. It does not look at the impact of what is being implemented on other programmes/processes/systems. One of the interviewees, A8, put this crudely where he stated that, “… at times, while there is a claim that this (many changes) is due to the environmental changes – I doubt that. I just think that its poor planning, inability to look at things holistically. What appears infront of the nose at that moment becomes the most highly glorified urgent matter on earth that warrants people to drop everything else and focus on it while what is at the feet – far from the eye, may have the most devastating effects if not attended to.” A2 also exemplified with the Performance Management System which was never really completed but has been left off. At the moment there are a number of initiatives that are at various stages of development. At no stage (at least that I’m aware of) where there had been a joint view on how these impact on each other - how synergies could be exploited and how paradoxes could be addressed. On the other side this problem could be due to the fact that there is insufficient long-range planning that takes place – looking at the year ahead and identify “all” the new initiatives that need to be implemented, communicate those plans well in advance so that people are aware of what is oncoming. What is the problem with this, why is it not happening? Probably lack of awareness and/or lack of appreciation of its importance! In order to address this problem and to ensure that the chances of success in implementation are improved it appears that there are two areas that the CDC has to consider addressing on its planning process: (a) Integrated and holism in planning; and (b) Long-range planning. How will these address the problem of poor implementation? All these are components of a planning process, as identified above. Effective or “proper” planning would be achieved by ensuring that all these components are included in the planning process. But this does not necessarily indicate how the problem would be solved by addressing this but just highlights what needs to be done. Integrated planning requires that all the programmes/processes/systems/human issues that may be impacted upon by the plan are taken into consideration during the planning process to ascertain the nature and the extent of the impact so that measures could be undertaken to enhance it (if the impact is positive) or mitigated against (if the impact is


Copyright UCT

- 117 -

negative). It seeks to identify synergies where they occur. Holism in this instance would imply looking at the systematic impact of introducing the new plans into the CDC (viewing the CDC as a system). This approach would enable one to have a birds eye-view and on all the projects and would therefore be in a position to prioritise them better. Typical management tools that could be used for this purpose include McKinsey’s 7S’s and Inter-active Planning Process. By long-range planning I’m referring to considering medium to long-term organisational needs and assess the urgency of responding to those needs. This process will enable all the identifiable future and current programmes to be evaluated, weighed, and prioritised. A certain criteria, e.g. 2x2 Matrices on Importance-Urgency, Impact-Importance, etc could be used for deciding on the prioritisation. Scenario Mapping Process could also be used to identify the programmes/initiatives to be pursed based on the outcomes of this process. Having these been taken into consideration, the planning process would be improved. With improved planning the implementation of PIPs could be improved.

9.4 Effective Communication

Effective communication is one the areas that were reported as being problematic in the CDC. In this section I will look briefly on what communications is and what defines effective communication. I will then compare that with what is happening in the CDC so that I could be more specific when addressing communication issues. The main intention is see how communication could be improved in such a way that it does not become barrier to implementation in the future. I see communication as a process that enables two or more individuals to exchange data or information. This could be verbal, written or both. I see effective communication as packaging adequate information that could be understood by the recipient, and using appropriate means of passing that information, doing so at the right time, allowing the recipient to reflect back on that information. The terms “adequate”, “appropriate”, and “right” are interpretive. They require that the sender of the message assesses the situation before sending the information. What problems have been raised by the CDC that led to a conclusion that communication was poor and that led to poor implementation of PIPs? Typical issues that have been raised during interviews include the fact that: people are not clear on what they are expected to do; at times they are not informed at all; mixed messages due to double mandating; corporate strategy not been communicated well to decision-making structures; not clear where an initiative fits in the entire scheme of things; things imposed unto people; people not listening to each other ending up with competing “bests”; things that need to be implemented are complicated.


Copyright UCT

- 118 -

Issues that were raised are:- (A1) There is communication breakdown due to flat organisational structure; (A2) People to be allowed to say what they want to say but must be able to reframe; people being experts in their fields and end up not wanting to listen to what other people have to say; (A3) strategy is not communicated; strategy not known by the decision-making structures; lack of effective reporting; other strategies difficult to assimilate; (A6) not singing from the same song-sheet. The nature of problems that were raised are considered as components of what is necessary for ensuring effective communication. Hambrick and Cannella (1989) highlighted a need for selling the strategy to people so as to ensure its successful implementation. This would eliminate the need for imposing the strategy unto people. In doing so, people take ownership and commit to it. Smit (2003) highlighted interpersonal processes where he highlighted strategic consensus which include cognitive and emotional consensus. Strategic consensus itself could be achieved through effective communication. The ‘Three E Principles of Fair Process’ raised by Kim and Mauborgne (2005) also fall in the same ambit. As argued by Kim and Mauborgne “emotional and intellectual recognition leads to a need for a fair process to be followed. Emotionally, individuals seek recognition of their value. Intellectually individuals seek recognition that their ideas are sought after and given thoughtful reflection, and that others think enough of their intelligence to explain their thinking to them.” According to Herzberg (1966, quoted by Kim and Mauborgne, 2005) this would inspire strong intrinsic motivation, causing people to go beyond the call of duty and engage in voluntary co-operation –leading to execution of strategy. But in what way would improving communication address the issue of poor implementation in the future? Firstly people would be well informed abut the strategy of the organisation so that they could appreciate where the initiatives that they need to pursue fall in the entire scheme of things. Things that are complex would be simplified for them. Because of common understanding that would improve alignment and single-mindedness. In the end the essence of communication with respect to getting implementation is to solicit strategic consensus, which would be achieved when the problem areas raised above have been addressed. So improving communication will result in improved implementation. Some of the approaches that could be adopted to ensure effective communication include the following: (a) Position swaps – putting oneself in the shoes of the recipient to assess the most

appropriate way of communicating; (b) Effective listening – attentive listening to requests and/or to explanations; (c) Balanced Advocacy and Enquiry – convey the message and check the degree of

understanding;


Copyright UCT

- 119 -

(d) Strategic Assumption Surfacing and Testing (SAST) techniques - surfacing assumptions that we make about situations that we get exposed to;

(e) Critical Systems Heuristic (CSH) – compare what is being observed to what the case should be;

(f) Addressing the Left Hand Column (LHC) – not allowing prejudices or assumptions to cloud the message or thoughts about what is intended; and

(g) Two-way communication – allowing views to be expressed and questions to be asked from both ends.

Therefore if the effectiveness of the communication is improved people stand a better chance of knowing what needs to be done, how to do it, why it’s being done. Through buy-in implementation would be improved.

9.5 The Discipline on Implementation

Somehow I found the term “discipline” having a negative connotation in my mind. Because of this I decided that I should spend some time defining it. The reason is that a person’s incorrect interpretation of what is intended here may lead to negativity, thus resulting disengagement. The Oxford Dictionary describes discipline as “(a) [U] training and control, often using a system of punishment, aimed at producing obedience to rules, self control, etc. (b) [U] the controlled, ordered behaviour resulting from such training”. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary defines it as: “(a) control gained by enforcing obedience or order; (b) behaviour in accordance with the rules (as of an organisation): prompt willing obedience to the orders of superiors: systematic, willing, and purposeful attention to the performance of assigned tasks: orderly conduct.” The definition that I would like to move with for the purpose of this document is Webster’s which states that discipline is a “systematic, willing, and purposeful attention to the performance of assigned tasks : orderly conduct”. I chose this because the situation that I’m trying to address in the CDC is not in a state of chaos or unruly, that warrants the issue to be looked at from that discipline. It is merely getting people to self- identify what is “good” practice, as described within moral grounds (utilitarianism, rights, and justice) and do those consistently. Collins (2001) explains this concept quite carefully. He focuses on culture of discipline. In other words rather than looking at discipline only in a specific area, such saying as “From now on I’ll be disciplined on returning calls on time”, or “I’ll make submissions on time”, etc. Collins is looking for culture of discipline which becomes a way of doing things generally. Discipline is not bureaucracy. Discipline is not dogmatism. I see discipline as being about dependability, first to yourself (being able to do those things the way you undertook to do them) and then to others (being able to do those things that you


Copyright UCT

- 120 -

promised others to do, openly or discretely). Discipline is tantamount to quality. Discipline is how one manages oneself. One way of achieving this could be through Psychosynthesis. Next is the recognition of co-existence which is could best be explained in terms of Emotional Competence. Collins warns against bureaucracy and hierarchy and suggests creation of culture of discipline. Collins continues by saying that “When you put these two complementary forces together a culture of discipline with an ethic of entrepreneurship - you get a magical alchemy of superior performance and sustained results. Performance and results can only be acquired through implementation. The situation in the CDC One of the interviewees (A1) raised that there is no discipline of doing things in the organisation. His view is that this is caused by the flat democratic structure that the CDC has adopted. Because of this structure he considers that there is no hierarchical trust. He then suggested a more structured arrangement with codes defining certain way of doing things. A2 also raised that “we need to discipline people”. Presumable, he called for discipline because he noticed lack or absence of it. The other behaviours that were highlighted which could be considered as associated with lack of or no discipline on implementation are: (a) Starting things and not finishing them – the process of starting an implementation is

not an end in itself but a means to an end – end being the attainment of the objectives of the initiative being implemented;

(b) Not tracking critical indicators – if this is not done it would not be possible to report objectively on the success or otherwise in achieving the objectives of what is being implemented;

(c) Lack of effective reporting and effective communication – almost all PIPs require involvement of other people. Therefore from rights and justice points of view, they deserve to be informed about what will have impact on them or what is expected of them.

Some of these may be consequential, i.e. they are not self-induced but caused by other factors. But in the end those factors limit the CDC from being disciplined towards implementation. Addressing the problem There are two approaches that could be adopted to address the situation: pursuing internally driven discipline or externally driven discipline. Internally driven discipline requires one to observe the situation at hand and take a conscious decision to do things in a certain way. This would require Psychosynthesis and Emotional Competence. The second alternative moves towards codification of rules of behaviour, putting some penalty measures where such rules are not observed. This is a command and control


Copyright UCT

- 121 -

structure. In terms of speed in putting systems in place, this alternative would have a higher turn-around time than the first one. The downside to it is that the command and control management style is not considered ideal for PIPs. The management of this process (‘policing’) would not guarantee sustainability of this intervention and would therefore not ensure implementation in the future. The downside with the first option is that it would be difficult to institutionalise because it deals with non-tangibles. However, from a sustainability point of view, it would be the most ideal. This option also has other benefits in that its effects will have positive impact on other areas as well such as ensuring good interpersonal relationships which are also necessary I ensuring a conducive working environment. How Psychosynthesis and Emotional Intelligence get introduced and practiced is another challenge as this is different from other training programmes such as time management, project management, etc. It would be necessary to conduct further studies in this area to see how it could be implemented effectively organisation-wide. So by improving the organisational discipline, there is greater opportunity that implementation would be improved in the future.

9.6 The Role of Quality Leadership on Implementation

I would start this section by looking at the organisational climate and organisational culture. Rousseau (1990: Palmer and Hardy, 2004) defines the climate as an individual’s perceptions of the organisation (supportive leadership, conduciveness of the working conditions). In other words it’s “how I feel being around here in this organisation”. On the other hand organisational culture is defined by social interactions (Rousseau, 1990). I see the organisational culture as “the way we do things here, as we are informed by the climate.” Leadership influences both the climate and the culture. The leadership also determines the culture of the organisation – advertently and inadvertently. For instance in Collin’s (2003) good to great companies the leadership style (Level 5 leadership) was the common tread – which then defined how things were done in those organisations. Faull et al (2004: 41) highlighted that, “implementation is the core test of leadership: ‘Leadership without discipline of execution is incomplete and ineffective. Without the ability to execute, all other attributes of leadership become hollow.” Charlton (2000:30) sees “effective leadership as being about enabling ordinary people to produce extraordinary things in the face of challenge and change…” According to Tata and Prasad (1998) command and control leadership style is not ideal for implementing TQM, which is a typical PIP. According to Keating et al (1999) command-and-control structures are dependent on managerial supervision. They are unlikely to work in settings where employee participation and contributions are difficult to monitor and assess. Participation becomes a matter of compliance to minimise conflict with superiors. When the push to participate is removed, compliance fades.” A typical case on this was reported by Collins (2003) where he demonstrated a drop on cumulative stock returns at Rubbermaid


Copyright UCT

- 122 -

Corporation after Stanley Gault, a tyranny, left that organisation. In essence the focus should be on creating vision rather than a plan, empower rather than direct, and partner and delegate rather than organise and control (Tata and Prasad, 1998). The leadership that is participative rather than authoritative is “ideal” (Mann and Kehoe, 1995). The leadership style is informed by the quality of the leader. Leadership qualities would include the aspired leadership traits as detailed by writers such as Manning (2002) and Maxwell (1998). Most of these traits are included in Goleman’s model for Emotional Competence. Goleman (undated) highlights that Emotionally Intelligent leadership is key to creating a working climate that nurtures employees and encourages them to give the best. It then follows that the higher one’s emotional competence is, the higher the potential for demonstrating better leadership qualities. Issues with the Leadership quality in the CDC A number of issues were raised by the interviewees about the management related issues in the CDC and how they impact on the ability for people to implement initiatives or to perform. Some of these things are consequential and others have a direct bearing. I grouped these under four categories, being informed by their similarities with respect to the issues that they seek to address. These are presented below:

(a) Issues associated with planning:

• Lack of proper planning; • Double mandating; • Too many changes introduced.

(b) Issues associated with managing performance: • Leadership not taking the PMS seriously (This was a generalised statement,

because I would say that there are some exceptions to this); • Lack of effective reporting; • Poor monitoring of performance at all levels; • PMS not well understood even by those at the top; • PMS not preached from the top; • No proper means of encouraging good performance but only through

penalising people. (reference by A7 by saying “there is no carrot here, only a stick!”);

• Non-uniform approach to reprimanding poor performance. Others allowed to get away with non-performance.

(c) Issues associated with ensuring shared meaning:

• Lack of singleness of purpose, not singing from the same song-sheet; • Strategy is not communicated;

(d) Creation of conducive work environment:


Copyright UCT

- 123 -

• CDC environment not conducive for work; • People tend to find themselves forced to do things that do not interest them

but they do them because they want to conform. Poor planning: Issue regarding poor planning were addressed under section 9.3 and will not be dealt with into detail here. However, it may be of interest to establish how management is associated with this. As alluded to in the Case Studies, top management plays a significant role in deciding on which initiatives to be pursued. There is no issue and also nothing unusual about that because the top management is expected to decide on the vision of the organisation .But the problem has to do with the manner in which it is done. The number of changes that are experienced are as a result of the changes that are initiated by top management. Therefore it follows that actually the poor planning, that was alluded to earlier on, is a manifestation of actions by senior management. The systemic impact of this development and its consequences thereof were dealt with in the previous Section. Using the analogy of causal relationships: If A causes B, B causes C, and C causes D; we could reasonable conclude that A causes D. In this respect we could say that the poor management style with respect to planning results into poor implementation of initiatives. Questionable management of performance: Management should lead by example. What is measured gets done! If management is pursued not to be serious about the management of performance, people would find a way of not reporting on critical things. If management does not take these seriously, then people may find room for being slack. When people things are not measured, it slips being done therefore leading to initiatives not being implemented. Singleness of purpose: Management is responsible for determining and communicating the vision and the strategic direction of the organisation. If people don’t see what they have to do being aligned with what they perceive the strategic direction to be, then they will find it difficult to justify why they should do that thing. This will happen when people don’t appreciate the strategic direction of the organisation well. They then have to be forced. But the process of forcing them does not ensure sustainability. This is associated with the lack of ensuring strategic consensus. When this happens then autonomous strategic behaviours crop up! This may happen as silent protest. The need for implementing a given PIP then becomes secondary to them. Conducive work environment: Top management has to ensure that the work condition is conducive for people to perform to the best of the ability (Charlton, 2000). If the working condition is not conducive then people won’t be incentivised. They will not perform in areas where they


Copyright UCT

- 124 -

could ordinarily, including implementation of initiatives. Top Management has to adopt the notion that “right people are your greatest assets”, as Collins (2003) advocates. So by addressing the areas stated above, the CDC’s ability to implement PIP in the future will be improved. By addressing the identified problem areas, the concern about inability to implement TQM would be addressed. While it is well and good to identify a number of things to do – as the case has been in this chapter, it would be useful to indicate how this could be rolled out from a practical point of view. This is dealt with in the next Chapter.


Copyright UCT

- 125 -

CHAPTER 10

A plan will remain a fancy dream until it has been implemented. …Hutchinson

10 FROM THEORY TO PRACTICE

10.1 Are we Landing or are we Taking Off? As I grew up, I was made to understand that before a person could be given some medication he/she has to accept that he/she is sick; that he/she needs help; and that he/she will get better after taking the medicine! As I reached this point of my research work I wondered, are we landing or are we taking off? But really, the answer depends on what the CDC wants to see! I prepared this report in such a way that to a large extent it is clear to any manager who would be reading it. I was attempting to write it in such a way that I won’t have to rewrite another one for management because I felt that we need to implement some of the recommendations immediately, BUT having an implementation plan been produced and agreed upon. Before getting there I would like to reiterate the demise of the Titanic few minutes before the end of its glory, at midnight of April 14, 1912. As the three lookouts were seated at the front of the ship, one exclaimed, ‘Hey, isn’t that an iceberg?’ But before they could confirm that their attention was veered off by two lovers who wondering about a deck below. By the way, even before that “eight ships had warned the Titanic of ice. But through miscommunication, arrogance and neglect of duty, most messages never made it to the hands of the relevant crew members.” (www.newfie.com, 1998:1). In the nick of a moment when they raised their eyes again, at 11:40 pm the lookout sported and yelled, “An iceberg!” But it was too late to do anything about that – they could not slow down nor change the course. And that was the end of that British show piece! Now, I’m wondering if I’m seeing an iceberg, or?

10.2 This is where I Suggest we Start Changing the course in which the CDC has been charting with respect to implementation will not be an easy overnight job. To that it would be ideal to consider small wins approach. Small wins are low hanging fruits or small achievable portions of the project that could be implemented with less effort but would yield meaningful results. As a starting point, the very least that needs to be done is for the top management to internalise the outcomes of this report and commit that they are going to do something


http://www.newfie.com/

Copyright UCT

- 126 -

about it. It goes back to the top simple because if the top management is not committed the rest of the organisation will not find way to do anything about it. As a second point, the focus area should be acquisition of requisite knowledge. This is informed by the fact that of the five main drivers to poor implementation, it was identified as the key main driver. As self-acclaimed knowledge-based organisation, the CDC has a well-developed Training and Development Programme (T&D). Focussing on development programmes would therefore not require major changes on the system. It would require better and more focussed attention on things that matter the most to the success of the organisation. The CDC has to develop a programme that is geared towards implementation and to be compulsory to all (to the extent that this does not have any negative moral implications!). Application of principles of effective implementation could be monitored on an ongoing basis by a focus group on implementation. This could be a core group/committee/unit that will run TQM. The question on how to introduce Psychosynthesis and Competitive Intelligence as areas of focus would also be looked at by that group. As alluded to earlier on, the closure of the current gaps will give rise to new bottlenecks, therefore requiring continuous improvement of the process of implementation. The implementer of the “Implementation Drive” has to be identified and be asked to develop a plan together with top management on how best to roll this out.


Copyright UCT

- 127 -

CHAPTER 11

11 EVALUTAION AND REFLECTIONS

11.1 Evaluation

In this section I will focus on evaluating the validity and the ethical issues pertaining the preparation of this report. I will not repeat the evaluation of relevancy and utility as those have already been covered under Sections 4.6.4 and 5.3.3, respectively. 11.1.1 Validity

This research work is based on a practical problem that exists at my workplace. Following the recent strategy session by the Executive Management, execution was identified as one of the focus areas in the current Financial Year. I identified the problem of poor implementation in the context of what I was mandated to do: to implement a QMS at work. Based on my understanding of the situation at work, I considered it appropriate to pay attention to this problem because it did not only affect TQM but other programmes as well. The approach that I adopted in sourcing the data and other material was discussed and is auditable. Dealing with biases is always a challenge especially if the issue at hand has a direct bearing on you. I tried to address this by checking my thinking against the “popular beliefs” at work, but not limited to. I also tended to reflect more on things that were brought up by others, especially the unstructured interviews. Misinterpretation of what is reported on in the literature is another problematic area. I tried to avoid this by extracting the sections as they are and referenced them accordingly. The danger with this is what Booth et al (2003) refer to as “data dump”. The processes followed in arriving at the situation, concern and answer were well documented. Some of the information is contained in appendices and some is publicly known information e.g. the background to IDZ Programme and the challenges it faces. I tried to be as elaborate and simplistic as possible so that others could follow the logic. (I also did this for my own sake so that I could refer back to this material during implementation and post implementation for continuous improvement.) The approach adopted is such that it could be used in implementing PIPs and other initiatives. From this I could conclude that the approach that I adopted in this research was valid.


Copyright UCT

- 128 -

11.1.2 Ethics

The practical problem that I raised had far reaching implications as it did not only threaten my ability to implement TQM but other PIPs/programmes/ initiatives. Inability for the CDC to realise maximum return on its investments is a cause for concern and also the frustration that poor execution causes. This is in terms of time and money. The recommendations can only improve the situation in the CDC. The benefits that would be realised by implementing the recommendations would spread to other areas – improved work environment, reduced stress and better productivity. It only adds to the general welfare of the organisation. All in all I would say that the approaches adopted in this research and the recommended answers were ethically sound.

11.2 Areas for Further Research

The time that I spent researching on this topic and enormous challenges under which I had to finish this dissertation could only allow me to do so much. As with other researches, the more you dig in, the more you find gaps. With the limitations and challenges that I was faced with I could not close all those gaps, so the topic needs further work. Two areas that stood out as requiring further research are: (a) The extent to which the dominant personality characters that were identified by

Belbin (1981) and Miller (2001) influence the success to implement programmes/initiatives; and

(b) The issue about people running around doing this and that is one of the areas people normally complain about as limiting them from doing their work. It dawned to me that probably the matrix structure that the organisation has adopted has its downside which was never looked at. Therefore poor planning may not be the only problem that leads to the identified problem but also the organisational structure that has been adopted. The question that I have is: how does the matrix structure impact on the effective operations of the CDC?

11.3 Reflections

11.3.1 The dilemmas of a researcher As I meandered through the research I was always confronted with the dilemma of the sensitivity of the data. I wondered as to how one should deal with a situation where there is sensitive information to be used in the research work,


Copyright UCT

- 129 -

especially if that information provides you with the much needed evidence for your observations? How do you go about protecting images of some individuals in the research work especially if their behaviours provide top-class evidence on why things happen the way they do? How do you compete with issues of intellectual property of the organisation? Would John Perkins have revealed all about US in his book “Confessions of an economic hit man: How the US uses globalisation to cheat poor countries out of trillions” if he were still in the inner circles. Would Gordon Thomas have carried on with his book ‘Gigeon’s Spies’ if he were still inside the agency?

11.3.2 Paradox between research and implementation

How to balance a need for conducting a proper research before implementing a performance improvement programme (PIP) and a need to implement it “yesterday” still remains a stressful dilemma! This is what I was faced with. This is an interesting paradox that the proposed solution would have to deal with. Organisations normally don’t understand it when one says “Wait, I need to conduct a proper study on this before, plunging in and doing something that we are all not sure of”. (A bit of exaggeration!) When the pressure mounts for one to implement the moral question becomes: Do you forgo your professional moral obligations and not do it while not clear about it, or do you save your face and do it in anyway to avoid dereliction of duty?

11.3.3 The closing note!

To a large extent, arriving where I am gave me a great sense of awe! I was excited about my research experiences but at the same time saddened. The ability to balance work pressures when they are at their prime and academic pressures when deadlines are looming gave me a profound experience on how to juggle a fluid scale!

The great sense of satisfaction is the realisation of the fact that indeed there is something that could be done to address implementation problem that the CDC is faced with. Although I reached the end, I felt that it’s only the beginning in terms of addressing the problem at hand. As a technocrat I still have a lot to learn about qualitative research – more so the psychological “ologies”!


Copyright UCT

- 130 -

REFERENCES 2GC Limited, (2003), Frequently Asked Question : How Can I Maximise the Chances of Successful

Implementing Balanced Scorecard?, 2GC Active Management, Berkshire, UK, www.2gc.co.uk Amidon, D.M. (2003), The Innovation Superhighway, Butterworth Heinemann, London. Belbin, M. (1981), Management Teams: Why the Succeed or Fail, Heinemann, London. Bonoma, T.V. (1984), Making Your Marketing Strategy Work, Harvard Business Review,

March/April, Vol 62, pp 69-76. Booth, W.C., Colomb, G.G., and Williams J.M. (2003), The Craft of Research, The University of

Chicago Press, Chicago. Bowey, S. (2002), Life Stories : Using Narrative to Build Customer Relationships, Executive MBA

Dissertation, University of Cape Town. Brumley, R.D. (2002), Identify Barriers to Implementation – and Strategies to Overcome them,

TriCentral PC Toolkit: Chapter 3: Building a Palliative Care Program, www.mywahtever.com/cifwriter/content/22/4481.html

Burrel, G. and Morgan, G. (1979), Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis, Heinemann,

London. Charlton, G. (2000), Human Habits of Highly Effective Organisations, Van Schaik Publishers,

Pretoria. Chrisander, S. (2005), Implementation Problems in the EU: Analysed with Principal Agent Analysis,

Dept of Political Science, Lund University. Christensen, L. (1997) Experimental Methodology Boston: Allyn & Bacon Press. Collins, J. (2001) Good to Great, Random House Business Books, Parktown, South Africa. Combe, I.A. and Botschen, G. (2004), Strategy Paradigms for Management of Quality: Dealing with

Complexity, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 38, No. 5/6, pp 500-523, Emerald Group Publishing Limited,

Dick, B. (1992), Qualitative Action Research: Improving the Rigour and Economy, Action Research

and Process Management Association, Brisbane pp 432-435.

MBLMPU001 References March 2006

http://www.2gc.co.uk/

http://www.mywahtever.com/cifwriter/content/22/4481.html

Copyright UCT

- 131 -

Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R. and Lowe, A. (1991), Management Research: An Introduction, Sage London.

Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), Building Theories from Case Studies, Academy of Management Review,

Vol 14, No. 4, pp 532-550. faculty.ncwc.edu (2003), Qualitative Social Science Research Methodology,

http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/308/308lect09.htm, 15/03/2006. Faull, N. and Wood, E. (1999), What are the Best Really Best At? Paper presented to the Tenth

Annual Meeting of the Production and Operation Management Society, Charleston, USA. Faull, N., Fleming, P. and Bourne, M. (2004), Implementation Principles – Turning Intentions into

Outcomes, IEE Manufacturing Enginner, Vol 83, Issue 2, pp 39-41. Flyod, S.W. and Woolridge, B. (1992), Managing Strategic Consensus: The Foundation of Effective

Implementation, Academy of Management Executive, Vol 6, pp 27-39. Frigenti, E. and Comninos, D. (1999), The Practice of Project Management – A Business Approach,

Institute of Chartered Accountants of New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand. Gummesson, E. (1991), Qualitative Methods in Management Research, Sage, Newbury Park, CA. Goleman, D. (??), The Emotionally Intelligent Workplace, Ch 3, Hambrick, D.C. and Cannella, A.A. (1989), Strategy Implementation: a Substance and Selling,

Academy of Management Executive, Vol 3, pp 278-385. Handy, C. (1989), The Age of Unreason, Hutchinson, UK. Heylighen, F. (1993), Epistemology, Introduction, Principia Cybernetica Web,

http://pespmcl.vub.ac.be/EPISTEMI.html, 28/11/2005. Herzberg, F. (1966), Work and the Nature of Man, Cleveland, OH: World Publishing. Hill, C.W.L. and Jones, G.R. (1998), Strategic Management – An Integrated Approach, 4th Edition,

Houghton Mifflin Company, New York. Hill, J. and McGowan, P. (1999), Small Business and Enterprise Development: Questions about

Research Methodology, International Journal of Entrepreneurship Behaviour & Research, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp 5-18.

Hutchinson, (1989), The Age of Unreason, Charles Handy’s Book., UK.


http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/308/308lect09.htm

http://pespmcl.vub.ac.be/EPISTEMI.html

Copyright UCT

- 132 -

Jackson, M.C. (2003), Systems Thinking : Creative Holism for Managers, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, West Sussex, England.

Johnson, S.J. (2001), How Toyota Turns Workers Into Problem Solvers, Harvard Business School

Working Knowledge, http://hbswk.hbs.edu/pubitem.jhtml?id=2646&sid=0&pid=0&t=operations Katz, J.P., Krumwiede, D.W., and de Czege, M.W. (1999), Total Quality Management in the Global

Marketplace: The Impact of National Culture on TQM Implementation, International Journal of Management, Vol. 15, No.3, pp 349-356.

Keating, E.K., Oliva R., Repenning N.P., Rockart S. and Sterman J.D. (1999), Overcoming the

Improvement Paradox, European Management Journal, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp 120-134. Kim, W.C. and Mauborgne, R. (2005), Blue Ocean Strategy, Harvard Business School Press, Boston. Klein, K.J. and Sorra, J.S. (1996), The Challenge of Innovation Implementation, Academy of

Management Review, Vol 21, No.4, pp 1055 – 1080. Kotler, P. (1984), Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, and Control, 5th Ed., Prentice-Hall,

Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Kotler, P. (1999), Kotler on Marketing, The Free Press, London. Kotter, J.P. (1995), Why Transformation Efforts Fail? Harvard Business Review, March/April, Vol

73, Issue 2, pp 59. Kujala, J. and Lillrank, P. (2004), Total Quality Management as a Cultural Phenomenon,

Quality Management Journal, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp 43-55. Lehmann, S. and Richards, A. (2002), The Development and Application of an Implementation

Framework, Research Report, Graduate School of Business, University of Cape Town, Linstone, H. (1984) Multiple Perspectives for Decision Making, North Holland. Mann, R. and Kehoe, D. (1995), Factors Affecting the Implementation and Success of TQM,

International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp 11-23. Manning, T. (2002), Discovering the Essence of Leadership, Zebra Press, Cape Town. Maxwell, J.C. (1998), The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville

Tennessee.


http://hbswk.hbs.edu/pubitem.jhtml?id=2646&sid=0&pid=0&t=operations

Copyright UCT

- 133 -

McAfee, A. (2003), When too much Knowledge is a Dangerous Thing, MIT Sloan Management Review, Winter, pp 83-89.

Miller, P. (2001), Mission Critical Leadership: Getting you and Your Business up to Sped in the new

Economy; McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, London. Mills, A. (2001), Gareth Morgan: Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis, Aurora

Online, http://aurora.icaap.org/archive/morgan.html, 01/12/2005. Mitchell, M. and Wier, L. (2004), Implementation Principles and Implementation Success, MBA

Research Report, University of Cape Town. Mitroff, I. (1998), Smart Thinking for Crazy Times, Barret-Koehler. Morgan, G. (1997), Images of Organisations, Sage, London. Monash University, (2003), Implementation and Control of Marketing Programs, Marketing and

Theory Practice Online, Faculty of Business Economics, www.buseco.monash.edu.au/depts/mkt/mtp_online/poor.php 04/02/2006.

Murphy, E. (1997), Constructivist Epistemology, Constructivism: Philosophical & Epistemological

Foundations, http://www.cdli.ca/~elmurphy/emurphy/cle2.html, 28/11/2005. Nutt, P.C. (1986), Tactics of Implementation, Academy of Management Journal, Vol 29, No. 2, pp

230-261. O’Brien, R. (1991), An Overview of the Methodological Approach of Action Research, Faculty of

Information Studies, University of Torronto. Ouye, J.A. (1996), Improving Productivity, Through Integrated Workplace Planning, World

Workplace ’96, www.workplayce.com/integrat.html, 08/03/2006. Padhi, N. (2000), The Eight Elements of TQM, iSixSigma LLC, Palmer, I. and Hardy, C. (2004), Thinking about Management, SAGE Publications, London. Parncharoen, C., Girardi, A. and Entrekin, L. (2001), The Impact of Cultural Values on the

Successful Implementation of Total Quality Management: A Comparison between the Australian and Thai Models, Murdock University, Thailand, pp 597-609.

Pfeffer, J. and Sutton, R.I. (1999), Knowing “what” to do is not Enough: Turning Knowledge into

Action, California Management Review, Vol 42, No. 1, pp 83-107.


http://aurora.icaap.org/archive/morgan.html

http://www.buseco.monash.edu.au/depts/mkt/mtp_online/poor.php

http://www.cdli.ca/%7Eelmurphy/emurphy/cle2.html

http://www.workplayce.com/integrat.html

Copyright UCT

- 134 -

Porter, L.J. and Parker, A.J. (1993), Total Quality Management – The Critical Success Factors, Total Quality Management Journal, Vol. 4, No.1, pp 13-22.

Reed, R., Lemak, D. and Montgomery, J. (1996), Beyond Process: TQM Content and Firm

Performance, Academy of Management Review 21, No. 1, pp 173-202. Rizzuto, T.E. (2003), A Literature Overview of Technology Implementation Failure : The People-

Barriers and Solutions, Pennsylvania State University. Robertson, T.S. and Gatignon, H. (1986), Competitive Effects on Technology Diffusion, Journal of

Marketing, Vol 50, pp 1-2. Rousseau, D.M. (1990), Assessing Organisational Culture: The Case for Multiple Methods, in B.

Schneider (ed.), Organisational Climate and Culture. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp 153-192. Sandrock, K. (2003), Introduction to Systems Engineering, Lecture Notes, Dept of Mechanical

Engineering, University of the Witwatersrand. Schön, D.A. (1987), Educating the Reflective Practitioner : Towards a New Design for Teaching and

Learning in the Professions, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Seraph, J.V., Benson, P.G., and Schroeder, R.G. (1989), An Instrument for Measuring the Critical

Factors of Quality Management, Decision Sciences, Vol. 20, pp 810-829. Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R.B., and Smith, B.J. (2002), The Fifth Discipline

Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organisation, Nicholas Brealey Publishing, London.

Smit, P.J. (2003), Strategy Implementation: Readings, Juta & Co Ltd, pp 14 - 45, Spear, S. and Bowen, H.K. (1999), Decoding the DNA of the Toyota Production System, Harvard

Business Review, Sept-Oct, pp 97-106. Statistics South Africa, (2005), Labour Force Survey: March 2005, Statistical Release P0210. Sunter, C. and Ilbury, C. (2001), The Mind of a Fox: Scenario Planning in Action, Human &

Rousseau / Tafelberg, Cape Town. Tallberg, J. (2003), European Governance and Supranational Institutions – Making States Comply,

Routledge. Tata, J. and Prasad, S. (1998), Cultural and Structural Constraints on Total Quality Management

Implementation, Total Quality Management Journal, Vol. 9, No. 8, pp 703-710.


Copyright UCT

- 135 -

Tan, P.K.L. (1997), An Evaluation of TQM and the Techniques for Successful Implementation, Journal – Training for Quality, Volume 5, Number 4, pp 150-159.

uk.geocite.com (??), Qualitative Research Methods: Participant Observation,

http://uk.geocite.com/balihar_sanghera/qrmparticipantobservation.html. 15/03/2006. UNCTAD (2003), World Investment Report: FDI Policies for Development: National and

International Perspectives – Overview, Geneva. Upton, D.M. (1998), Designing, Managing and Improving Operations, New Jersey, Harvard Business

School, Prentice-Hall. Yong, J. and Wilkinson, A. (2001), Rethinking Total Quality Management, Total Quality Management

Journal, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp 247-258. Weick, K.E. (1979), The Social Psychology of Organizing, 2nd Ed. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

(1885) “Cosmos vs. Chaos: Sense and Nonsense in Electronic Contexts.” Weick, K.E. (1993), The Collapse of Sense-making in Organizations: The Mann Gulch Disaster,

Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 38, Issue 4. wikipedia (2006), Epistemology, Wikipedia – the free encyclopedia,

http:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology 15/03/2006. Woolridge, B. and Flyod, S.W. (1989), Research Notes and Communication: Strategic Process

Effects on Consensus, Strategic Management Journal, Vol 10, pp 295-302. www.newfie.com (1998), Titanic, www.newfie.com/pages/titanic.html Zimmerman, B.J. (2001), Ralph Stacey’s Agreement and Certainty Matrix, Schulich School of

Business, York University, Toronto Canada, www.plexusinstitute.org/edgeware/archive/think/main_aides3.html


http://uk.geocite.com/balihar_sanghera/qrmparticipantobservation.html

http://www.newfie.com/

http://www.plexusinstitute.org/edgeware/archive/think/main_aides3.html

Copyright UCT

- 136 -

APPENDIX A: An exhaustive list of CDC’s stakeholders, highlighting their needs from the CDC and the CDC’s from them.

Table A1: The CDC’s stakeholders and their claims.

STAKEHOLDERS WHAT THEY NEED FROM CDC

WHAT CDC NEEDS FROM THEM

Government as a shareholder

• Develop the IDZ; • Ensure socio-economic

upliftment; • Return on their investment; • Good corporate governance;

• Political protection; • Funding; • Facilitation of the IDZ

Programme;

CDC Employees • Job satisfaction; • Job security; • Conducive working conditions; • Prosperity.

• Loyalty; • Skill, delivery / performance; • Upholding the high value system;

Board • Performance; • Good corporate governance;

• Guidance; • Protection from ills of the

industry;

Investors • Delivery to the CDC’s promise; • High-quality reliable products;

• Revenues; • Loyalty;

Community • Jobs; • Responsible developer;

• Societal licence to operate; • Provision of a labour pull,

Businesses • Business opportunities; • Support; • Attraction of investors

Suppliers (Service Providers)

• Contracts; • Revenues;

• Reliability; • Delivery; • High work ethic

Politicians • Political recognition • Political space, • Political licence to operate

Environmentalists • Environmental protection • Operating space; • Environmental guidance

Government • Good citizenship; • Adherence to legislative

requirements;

• Support for the development; • Sensible rules that would assist

the development; • Attraction of investment; • Timeous approval of applications; • Stable political environment; • Policies that encourage economic

development

National Ports Authority (NPA)

• Successful IDZ • Co-operation towards the

development of the project; • Joint efforts towards promoting

the development;

• Port that operates to world standards;

• Good work ethic; • Co-operation towards joint

promotion of the development;

Local Govt - NM3 • Strategic partnership; • Reliability in the provision of

MBLMPU001 Appendix A March 2006

Copyright UCT

- 137 -

MBLMPU001 Appendix A March 2006

STAKEHOLDERS WHAT THEY NEED FROM CDC

WHAT CDC NEEDS FROM THEM

• Recognition; • Payment for service;

services; • Support on the development; • Delivery of services; • Joint promotional strategies;

SOEs, e.g. Eskom, Spoornet,

• Co-operation; • Payment for services

• Reliability; • Support; • Delivery of services

Academic Institutions

• Business opportunities; • Reputable employer; • Successful development;

• Support in marketing the development;

• Provide assistance on academic research;

• Produce requisite skills; • Provide relevant training to the

CDC personnel; • Assist investors with their

research needs;

Finance Institutions • Business opportunities • Financial assistance others;

Trade Unions • Fair treatment of workers; • Job security;

• Labour stability

Copyright UCT

- 138 -

APPENDIX B: Viable Systems Diagnosis. A) SYSTEM IDENTIFICATION

(a) The purpose to be pursued The purpose to be pursued by the system in focus is “to provide a competitive investment location and a total business solution for Customers, and ensure sustainable economic development.” The development of an IDZ is a means by which this need is satisfied.

(b) Determination of the relevant system (Recursion Level 1)

The relevant system for achieving the purpose stated above is the CDC. (c) The system of which the system in focus is part (Recursion Level 0)

The CDC is part of the IDZ Programme which comprises other IDZs and the regulatory authorities, DTI and Customs - SARS.

(d) Viable parts of Sub-system 1 (SS1) of the system in focus (Recursion Level 2)

The viable parts of SS1 are the Enterprise Development (ED) and Zone Operations (ZO) Business Units. ED is responsible for investment promotion activities, which include packaging of offerings for investors and attracting investors. Having the investors been attracted, ZO has to ensure that they are retained, by fulfilling the promises made by ED during its promotional activities. This is done by providing various services to investors.

MBLMPU001 Appendix B March 2006

Recursion Level 1 The Coega IDZ

The CEO’s Office BU

Finance BU

Infrastructure

Corporate Services BU

Enterprise Development

Zone Operations BU

Safety, Health & Enviro

Recursion Level 0 The IDZ Programme

The Coega IDZ

Richards Bay IDZ

The East London IDZ

SARS-Customs

The DTI

Recursion Level 2 Enterprise Development

Market Research

Packaging of product offerings

Investment promotion

Copyright UCT

- 139 -

B) SYSTEM DIAGNOSIS

SUB-SYSTEM 1

Part of Sub-system 1 Issue considered Enterprise Development Zone Operations

Environment, operations and localised management

Environment comprises investors, service providers, government agents who, businesses. Identifies investor requirements; new business opportunities; develops promotional strategies; and promotes the IDZ; Headed by an Executive Manager.

Environment comprises investors, services providers, government authorities/agents. Seeks to fulfil the promises made by ED during the IP activities; develops systems for operating the IDZ; and provides landlord services. Headed by an Executive Manager.

Capacity to be viable in its own

Has a capacity to be viable on its own.

Has a capacity to be viable on its own.

Constraints imposed by higher management

Has to seek approval for visiting overseas investors and also on the people to be included in the visits.

No restrictions

Accountability and performance indicators

Number of investments secured Operational readiness of the IDZ and operational excellence

SUB-SYSTEM 2

(1) Potential sources of conflict and disturbances in the organisation

(a) Conflict between individuals

(i) Different personalities leading to different approaches to doing things thus bringing about conflict between the respective individuals;

(ii) Disagreement on performance issues - one individual believing that he/she is performing while the other believes that he/she is not;

(iii) Disagreement on the desirability of a leadership style being demonstrated at different levels;

(iv) Fundamentalists who challenge things for the sake of challenging them, especially when they are initiated by certain individuals;

(b) Conflict between individuals and the organisation

(i) Conflict with individuals believing in a systems-free environment as they believe that an environment with systems and structures restricts their innovative approaches or freedom to express themselves;

(ii) Certain individuals feeling that the organisation is imposing onto what they need to be doing, thereby negating them their autonomy;

(iii) Disagreement on how procurement issues should be dealt with;


Copyright UCT

- 140 -

(iv) Disagreement on the need for various structures that exist, requiring that they be eliminated;

(v) Individuals who still practice territorialism; (vi) Some level of discomfort between Support Staff and Management, Support

Staff being aggrieved by certain practices; (c) Conflict between Business Units

(i) Between ID and SHE on the implementation of SHE best practices; (ii) Between ID and LBMIS on the implementation of the leanership

programme, which is part of the Extended Public Works Programme; (iii) Between ZO and ED on what ED promises to potential investors without

checking with ZO on the possibility of providing such; (iv) Between ZO and ID on the provision of infrastructure and handing over

issues when these have been completed; (d) Conflict between the organisation and the external environment

(i) Investors wanting more incentives; (ii) Investors wanting to buy land while the CDC wants to lease it out; (iii) Some Service Providers wanting the relaxation of some of the empowerment

goals in procurement; (iv) Other entities believing that the IDZ programme is not a good idea for

promoting economic growth; (v) Model for running the IDZ programme differs from that of the CDC;

(e) Conflict between systems

(i) Potential conflict between cost cutting measures and quality management systems (e.g. printed documents for external stakeholders);

(ii) Conflict between cost cutting measures and training & development initiatives;

(2) Managing Conflict

Structures ensuring harmonisation and co-ordination

Area of focus How SS2 is perceived in the organisation

CEO’s Office Conflict between BU’s and conflict between the CDC and external environment

Threatening, imposing, snooping, micro-managing,

Corporate services Conflict between individuals Ineffective

Co-ordination Streams Conflict between programmes and objectives

Facilitating and confusing

EXMA Conflict between objectives Facilitating


Copyright UCT

- 141 -

SUB-SYSTEM 3 (a) SS3 activities of the CDC

(i) Corporate Services – provides requisite human resources; necessary office equipment; training of staff; assesses performance.

(ii) Zone Operations – provides ICT requirements and ensures proper use of the ICT facilities;

(iii) Finance – provides funding.

(b) SS3 means of exercising authority Generally, SS3 is considered to be democratic and allows fair freedom.

(c) SS3 translation of policy into operational plans

Each BU is responsible for translating policies into operational plans.

(d) Overseer of performance Corporate Services manages the Performance Management System. The overseer of overall performance at SS1 is the CEO and the Executive Managers of ED and ZO. Integrated performance assessment is still problematic in that there is no central place to go to in order to assess the overall performance of the SS1. Continuous improvement where it occurs cannot be assessed meaningfully.

(e) Audit functions - SS3*

Audit functions are carried out by Internal Audit Unit.

SUB-SYSTEM 4 Subsystem 4 is carried out to some extent by the CEO and various individuals within BUs. These activities are not co-ordinated. In terms of monitoring the business environment, especially with respect to competitive intelligence or market monitoring, there are virtually no activities. There is no clear process by which the issues picked up from the contextual environment are used to inform strategies for future survival. In a way there is no strategic , integrated and holistic planning that takes place informing how this task should be carried out from a co-ordinated fashion. To a large extent there is a big shortage in this area.

SUB-SYSTEM 5

Policies associated with the activities of various BUs are developed by those BUs. The Policy Review Group ensures that various policies are reviewed regularly and that they address relevant issues.


Copyright UCT

- 142 -

APPENDIX C: List of questions asked about observed poor implementation in the CDC – intended to surface the research question.

STEP 1: List all the relevant questions. (1) Why has it been left like this for so long? (2) How could we address the identified problem effectively and sustainably in the future? (3) What really motivates people to implement things? (4) Why has there been no one taking meaningful action to address the problem besides threatening

people about bonuses? (5) How has this impacted upon the stakeholders? (6) How have the investors been compromised as a result of this? (7) How is this affected by the size of the organisation? (8) Why has there been no attempt to codify implementation as the case is with strategy

development? (9) Why is it so easy for people to talk and not do? (10) How could we improve implementation of initiatives in the future? (11) What limits those who know from doing something about this? (12) What potential losses has the CDC incurred as result of this? (13) Why has implementation been so poor in the past” (14) What causes this behaviour? (15) What value do people put to things that they are implementing and leaving them halfway? (16) What character of people would save the situation from deteriorating further? (17) What return on investment that the CDC lose by not implementing things properly; (18) What role do morals play in all this? (19) Who is responsible for ensuring good performance and why has he/she not implemented that? (20) What makes people not to implement things? (21) How do others deal with this problem? (22) What could be done to improve the situation? STEP 2: Eliminate the who, what when and where questions. STEP 3: Group the remaining questions.

Consequential issues • Why has it been left like this for so long? • Why has there been no attempt to codify implementation as the case is with strategy development? • Why has there been no one taking meaningful action to address the problem besides threatening

people about bonuses? • Why is it so easy for people to talk and not do?

MBLMPU001 Appendix C March 2006

Copyright UCT

- 143 -

Reason for the past • Why has implementation been so poor in the past” Future focus • How could we address it effectively and sustainably in the future? • How could we improve implementation of initiatives in the future? Assessing the cost of the damage • How has this impacted upon the stakeholders? • How have the investors been compromised as a result of this? Others, experiences • How do others deal with this problem? STEP 4: Select the most relevant category of questions

MBLMPU001 Appendix C March 2006

Copyright UCT

- 144 -

MBLMPU001 Appendix D March 2006

APPENDIX D: Identifying methods to be used in the qualitative research. The definitions provided here are based on faculty.ncwc.edu (2004)

METHOD CONNOTATIVE DEFINITION COMMENT OF RESEARCH NEEDS

Action research Is used in real situations rather than contrived, experimental studies. Is based on learning by doing.

This is relevant as my research is based on a real live problem and its based on the work that I’m currently doing.

Grounded Theory Does not start with a priori position or hypothesis to prove or disprove. Things are emergent.

This is relevant because I need to avoid biases, having predefined positions – I just don’t know that the cause of the problem is and I will not speculate.

Participant observant

Process of immersing yourself in the study of people you’re not too different from.

Relevant in order to understand behaviours, and experience them first hand. This was pursued naturally, as I’m art of the CDC team

Ethnography Process of describing a culture or a way of a life from a folk’s point of view

There is relevant in that it would inform how things are done; how certain decisions are arrived at; the patterns. However, because of time constraints this was not pursued;

Photography Is filmmaking, is ethnography with recording

Not relevant nor ideal at the thought process cannot be filmed.

Ethnomethodology Study of commonsense knowledge. To understand the fragile and fluid process of social control as well as rules that people use for maintaining cultural boundaries.

Relevancy would be in as far as the assessment of the influence of interpersonal issues on implementation. But this would not be pursued because that would presuppose that this is one of the problem area

Dramaturgical interviewing

Doing research by role playing. Interviewing is conversation with a purpose.

No relevant as the I’m exposed to actors on a daily basis;

Sociometry Measurement of social distance between group members. It’s the assessment of attractions and repulsions between individuals in a group

Would be relevant to study interpersonal issues – but its not relevant in this research

Natural experiment

A situation where a split occurred between group members, and the researcher is afforded an opportunity to study the differentiation process of social structure.

Not relevant because we are not studying split in this instance.

Case study Occurs when all you have is information about one unique situation, and you want to generalise about other similar situations.

Relevant to pick up some practices

Unobstructive measures

Gather data in which subjects are not aware of being studied, e.g. look at the garbage, the old worn out clothing etc.

Not relevant as the piece of evidence could studied through patterns on how things are done;

Content Analysis Technique for gathering and analysing It’s not what people say that is of

Copyright UCT

- 145 -

MBLMPU001 Appendix D March 2006

the content of the text – as used in intelligence.

importance but how they do things, therefore this is not relevant.

Historiography Method of doing historical research or gathering and analyzing historical evidence

Useful but not that critical as the issues is not to dispute or prove the rate of poor implementation but to address to understand it and to address it.

Secondary analysis

Reanalysis of data that was originally compiled by another researcher for other purposes than the one the present researcher intends to use it for.

Would be useful to understand reasons behind poor implementation but not possible in this instance because no other studies exist.

Copyright UCT

- 146 -

APPENDIX E: Outcomes of unstructured survey, on the reasons leading to poor implementation of programmes, initiatives in the CDC.

These are outcomes of unstructured interviews carried out in the CDC in February 2006. Some interviewees requested that their identity not be revealed. This was acceded to. Other did not raise those concerns. However, it was felt that for uniformity, all the names will not be revealed.

Interview No. 1 Q: Why has the CDC been so poor in implementing various initiatives, but firstly do you agree

with that observation? A: Yes I do. One of the major problems is the flat democratic structure that the organisation has

adopted. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with it but it’s just that it has its problems. Because of this structure there is no hierarchical trust and therefore there is no discipline of doing things in the organisation.

In the organisation that I used to work for we started off with an amorphous structure. But there were problems with accountability and we moved into a more formalised structure and things improved. Things were coded. We had a company manual.

I think that we need the same thing here in the CDC, to codify things so that one knows exactly

what is expected of him/her. The problem is that people don’t read so the manual may not even be useful. They need a summary of what needs to be done. Codifying things in a Company Manual would work better. The Balance Scorecard could achieve that but ours in its current form is useless. It does not allow one to measure things properly.

Q: What else? A: There is lack of commitment. People are busy enough and they get lot of additional stuff from

other parts of the organisation. Also there is communication breakdown and all these could be attributed to the flat democratic structure.

Q: How would the structure assist in addressing the problem? A: There needs to be a two way communication - bottom up and top down. I don’t think that we are

effective enough by having all the managers sitting around the table talking about management issues as we normally do. We need to have Executives sitting alone to discuss strategic issues, more like Captains of Prayer. I’m not trying to suggest elitism but just to find a way of doing things more efficiently. However, we need to improve the effectiveness of our communication for this to work.

At this point there is no organisational strategy. There is no effective control of key things.

MBLMPU001 Appendix E March 2006

Copyright UCT

- 147 -

Q: Why are we so poor in implementing the existing corporate strategy? A: There could be a combination of things which include the fact that

• We are always running around; • There is no careful planning and focus on implementation; • We are always doing things in haste; • But changes in the contextual environment that require hasty changes.

Q: How do human or interpersonal issues impact on the observed level of implementation, if at

all? A: For me human issues are not an impediment all but things that I mentioned before. Q: How could the situation be improved to ensure better implementation in the future? A: We need to start off with an Internal Operating Manual which needs to include a disciplinary

code. The Manual has to be emphatic but not arrogant. It has to be owned by individuals. The problem is that you can deliver and you can be blocked in doing things. One has to have a control and power to implement these things effectively, otherwise it becomes a waste of time. Another area that needs attention is singleness of purpose and dedication. We need an hierarchal structure and authoritanism. At times you need some order. That’s what I think.

Interview No. 2: Q: Why has the CDC been so poor in implementing various initiatives, but firstly do you agree

with that observation? A: Yes we are very poor. We tend to pick up things and not finish them – we do too much at once.

It is also difficult to institutionalise all the controls – the Strategic Management Controls. We should concentrate one thing at a time. For instance with the Balance Scorecard – we took our eyes off from it as a result we are not tracking critical indicators. We don’t have a standard template to report on things continuously. I’m aware that at times we could experience clash of priorities. But even then we should still prioritise. For instance EXMA tends to be side-tracked and deal with things that are not too urgent at the expense of the critical ones.

Lack of proper planning leads to rushing when doing things. Rushing when doing things leads to the quality of a product being compromised. This becomes an issue by itself and therefore compromises the ability to focus on important things. We need an appreciation of priorities and not allow external things to intervene. Disruptions that occur make it difficult to focus on specific things. As it is the Board is getting upset with our performance. We need to discipline people. What gets tracked gets done. Execution needs to be measured because as it is we are not doing well there too.


Copyright UCT

- 148 -


all? A: People have to be allowed to say what they want to say but must be able to reframe. At times I

feel that there is a lot of dogmatism leading to fixation. This could be due to people being experts in their fields therefore not wanting to listen to what other people have to say. Probably, this could also be caused by the fact that we have no time to listen – no time to discuss issues effectively. In other words communication is not effective. This could be caused by the fact that because we are always under pressure we don’t have time to meet, just as we are doing now in this interview, and talk about things.

Q: How could we improve the situation so that we implement things better in the future? A: We need better organisation – time management to address the fragmented way of doing things.

We are not focused in meetings and we need to improve there. Agendas proliferate. We assume other people’s responsibilities too light.

We could improve how EXMA works by calling for it to meet once a month and have six monthly management meetings where a strategy is looked at. For urgent things like procurement submissions EXMA could have ad-hoc meetings. I understand that that’s how the PAC does things and things appear to be working well there. You could also have weekly Admin meetings. The role of clusters/streams need to be enhanced. We need to know what their deliverables are. What can be traced from what they are doing? We need brief notes on monthly basis on their progress. That’s my input.


with that observation? A: The CDC is indeed very poor. There are so many things that don’t get done. And I don’t

understand why we agree on them if we know that we are not going to implement them. The strategy is not communicated and is not known even by the decision-making structures such as the Procurement Committee, the Projects Approval Committee, etc. There seems to be no alignment between the Board and EXMA; between EXMA and Business Units (BU); BU and the staff. It is not that there is no implementation but its’ just that people who account don’t know what they have to implement.

There is lack of effective reporting. People do not account on things. As a result of poor reporting, things may appear worse than they are. People are generally not accountable. In that situation how could, for instance, a person whom I’m accountable to report on the progress on things that I’m doing if I’m not accountable to him/her? What may be needed are one-on-ones between CEO and the Executives.


Copyright UCT

- 149 -

Poor planning or planning but not proceed according to the plan is another problematic area. Other things are not doable but we agree or commit ourselves to them. At times we agree on unrealistic timelines. For instance in the last EXMA of 2005, there was an agreement that the dashboards (tool for monitoring progress on various things) would be completed by 15th Jan 2006. This was agreed upon knowing very well that it would not be possible to achieve that because of the December shut-down. As you may know we are now at the end of February and those dashboards have still not been completed. We are just our own worst enemies! We don’t work smart; we are not efficient; and this lead to a vicious cycle. People that need to monitor take things for granted, for instance between Project Managers and Executive Manager (EMs); EMs and CEO; CEO and Board. The problem is systematic. There is just poor monitoring at all levels. We assume a lot. In fact, while we should be talking about continuous improvement, we are practicing continuous fixing.


all? A: Human dynamics are a bit limited and as such I don’t think that they are an issue. You see

people show each other respect even in disagreement.

Others of cause have an issue with systems. Other people are given leeway on poor performance while others are not reprimanded about the same issues. Others are allowed to under-perform and as such other BUs are a law unto themselves. Look at how the BSP has been implemented. It compromises Sector Co-ordinators who should be feeding into it. Generally the organisation is not a tight ship. It’s loose and as a result things fall through the cracks. It is a bit haphazard. It depends too much on good faith. Checking is not done right across because there is no effective monitoring mechanism. The problem is huge. (The interview sadly ended here because of time limitations.)


with that observation? A: Yes, I agree with that observation. Attitudes are a big problem. People do know what they are

supposed to be doing but they are not doing them. We are not strict enough in dealing with such behaviours. We need a firm tone but sell it a bit. We also need to incentivise people to perform.

Biggest problem is human factor. People are allowed to get away with non-performance. If people are able to get away with things there could be no meaningful implementation.. Things need to be addressed there and there first. There is a need for consistency in reprimanding non-


Copyright UCT

- 150 -

performance. There is a need to monitor performance at all levels and be strict with it. Sabotage of programmes really is less of an issue. You see the Performance Management System (PMS) is not preached from top; is not communicated well enough; is not stressed; is not well understood even by those at the top therefore would be unable to make others perform; and is not taken seriously by EMs as they appear too casual about it. Really, the PMS is very critical but very worrying. Things are just not done here. People talk and talk but very little action. For example, the need to identify competencies to drive the organisation forward was spoken about almost two years ago. Is there anything that has been done about it? I haven’t seen it yet! You see poor communication leads to people not knowing what to do. Planning is very poor generally. If we continue with poor planning, we end up with stop gap measures. I’m aware that planning is not always 100% spot on but it still needs to be done. In fact there is no planning here but fire fighting and there is no responsive strategy as a result it becomes difficult to measure performance. We look at short-term interventions; crisis management is used to introduce things rather than long-term planning. Things are not looked from long-term sustainability point of view.

Q: What causes the CDC to be so poor in planning? A: We relax too much because we believe that we know what we are doing.

Uncoordinated planning and poor communication on who is supposed to be doing what – problems don’t just surface.

Q: What else? A: The issue of champions is also problematic. How do these people account? Champions for these

programmes are not accountable. If there is no accountability who would know whether things are working? The issues of accountability have to be included in the planning process. If I’m correct by saying that implementation is poor, then there is a problem with the PMS. As an example look at the budgeting process – planning is done in bits and pieces and then things are put together later. Gaps are realised very late. Whom would you then hold accountable for such gaps? We are all professionals and tend to come up with things that are best for us – end up with competing “bests”. As a result things end up not being done!

Q: What could be done to address these problems so that implementation is improved in the future?

A: The solution could be a two-day team-building session to relax people. In that session a strategy with clear problems statement would be presented. We would then agree on things to be implemented, being realistic about them. The idea behind a team-building is that we need an


Copyright UCT

- 151 -

environment where people would be relaxed. The idea would not be to judge the past in order to avoid defensiveness. Also we just need to start on a clean slate. The following Monday we would start off with what would have been agreed upon.

At this moment there are too many strategies that are presented but never get implemented. You see, when these strategies are presented I just sit in such sessions and not bother by attempting to contribute. In fact I just do my own things. I do so knowing that in six-month’s time I would be called for another one – the same thing. If I knew that people were serious about these strategies I would contribute effectively. Other strategies are difficult to assimilate and understand what they mean to me as an ordinary employee. These strategies are just intelligent documents which I find very difficult to interact with. I don’t disassociate as such but I just don’t see where I fit because I don’t understand them. This requires that communication be improved a lot. These are things that I think need to be addressed.


with that observation? A: Yha, the CDC is very poor there. People are busy with a number of things. Other people have no

time to go thorough all these requirements – for instance the need to use standard formats when preparing documents. Other people see them as being too complex. When we put these initiatives in place, how do we assess whether people understand them?

Communication is poor. There is no awareness drive to inform people of the reasons behind what is being proposed. With no communication there would be no buy-in. In fact we tend to communicate only when there is a problem. If you look at the Job-grading exercise, it is much better now than it was when it was introduced last year. And I think it’s because communication has been much better this time.

Q: Why is communication so poor? A: I think it’s the means that we use for communicating. We tend to use e-mails a lot and I don’t

think that e-mails are most appropriate or effective means of communication. For that matter at times I miss some of them because I get so many e-mails at a given point in time. I therefore tend to be selective and end up missing some of important ones.

At times I wonder if it’s necessary to implement all these things. Other people may not see them as necessary and end up not implementing them. How do we know the importance of these things?


Copyright UCT

- 152 -

Things are imposed unto people which is ok for other programmes but not for others. Therefore things should not be imposed if by not imposing them there is a better chance of getting better results. I think we make ourselves busy by implementing all these nuisance programmes, and as result we don’t have sufficient time to implement programmes that matter most. Therefore I think prioritisation is important. (Interview terminated because of time constraints.)


with that observation? A: Yho, that is common knowledge. Things are not implemented here. Double mandating is one of

the biggest problems. For instance you get more people being asked to do exactly the same thing. You end up not knowing your role and those of other people. This is a problem.

• The strategy is not clearly communicated and as result we are not singing from the same song-

sheet. • Everyone is running around we don’t seem to have enough time to sit down and do things; • The focus changes so many times, for example the current drive on revenue generation, where

does it come from? • There is no proper guidance on the new initiatives; • Resource planning is poor on utilisation of skills. Really, if one is not assertive in this

organisation he/she would die. Why not capitalise on specific resources for certain things? Also we do not look at a strategy and see how best other BUs could help. Why are these things not driven by EMs? EMs don’t take ownership because they don’t appear to know the business.

• Initiatives are started but are left hanging, they are not nurtured. There is no focus on specific programmes that have been defined and targeted for a particular year.

• We are always rushing for time. At times we get confronted with programmes that we don’t know much about and be expected to run with them. In such instances no help is offered on how to do these things.

• We want to be “Jack of all trades”. We must just need to outsource things that are not core to strategic partners.

Q: Why do we seem to be running around so much?

A: Because we don’t have defined priorities. Although strategy sessions take place, things are not communicated. Priorities change so often because of dynamic environment in which we are. We are just confused! And the CDC is very reactive.


Copyright UCT

- 153 -

What are our priorities for the next five years? I don’t know them and I don’t even know where I could get them. As long as the implementation plan is not defined, it will be very difficult to implement projects. Also, do we know who is supposed to do what in driving the strategy? People are protecting their territories. And because of that they refuse to release resource to go and assist in other parts of the organisation.

Q: What could be done to address these problems so that implementation is ensured in the

future? A: The CEO must be the champion of strategic initiatives with support from the EMs. EMS are not

supportive to the CEO at times.

• We need to start using each other’s strength; • We need to sing from the same song-sheet; • We need to prioritise; • We need to improve on communication; • We need to support each other.

Q: To what extent do human issues play part in this, if at all? A: People are just. Really, they are just and therefore there are no issues with them at all. People

love work to work for the CDC even though the environment is not conducive. Create an environment that would enable people to fly. What is important is job satisfaction. HR issues will, however, always be there. But in our case HR Unit is not responsive enough to key complaints. They wait until issues become too big.

Q: How should the CDC respond to high rate of changes that take place in its environment? A: Currently there is poor management of changes because the CDC is reactive. The CDC has no

closure on projects or initiatives. Things get started but there is no clear closure and as such things just surface unexpectedly at awkward times.

Q: Anything else? A: Yes. There are problems with our BSC. It is very broad. Measures have to be realistic. You see

right now measures do not cascade down or interlink with each others. Link expenditure and targets. For example you find that in one place the targeted budget is R21m whereas elsewhere the targeted expenditure is R5m. This does not make sense. Things have to tally up!

There is a need for ownership and guidance on strategy for the current financial year. Currently managers report to EXMA but they don’t know what EXMA thinks, whether what they report on is important.


Copyright UCT

- 154 -

Things are manageable but we seem to be chasing everything, even things that don’t look very important in the bigger scheme of things, e.g. monitoring of late comers. I mean, really! The problem is that things end up following the CEO’s mood. They are critical or not depending upon how he feels about them. We need to focus. As Jack Welsh says, “what makes you successful is to understand your business well so that you could take the necessary risks.” The lack of focus by the CDC will make it difficult for it to understand its business well. The CDC has competencies but does not plan on how best to use them. Besides all, I love my job. The risk, however, is that the CDC will lose passionate people. But my job is fulfilling. That’s all I could say.


with that observation? A: Oh, yes, that problem has always been there. Implementers lack enthusiasm. The reason for that

is that they lack support; positive response from the organisation when they implement things; they have to dig and dig for things from people and end up getting tired. Secondly the implementer does not have power to condemn non-performance or demand performance. Thirdly, the negative attitudes tend to kill initiatives.

• Extent of implementer’s knowledge and expertise on what needs to be done; • Level of interest by the organisation – more especially those that need to implement things.

This depends upon who is doing it because people don’t have confidence in certain individuals.

• The CDC falls short in making follow-ups. EXMA has a good system for tracking them. This could be attributed to lack of project management skills. This is related to hard rather than soft systems.

• Lack of appreciation by the organisation on the critical nature of improvement programmes. The very strategy of the organisation is not well understood, for example the fact that people see Clusters and Co-ordination Streams as nuisance is an indication. This is due to disassociation with strategy.

• People talk a lot about things - but there remains too much a gap between knowledge and the actual doing, i.e. implementation.

• People just participate because they just want to comply. It’s a compliance issue as a result when the sponsor disappears, the initiative also dies.

• We don’t have consequences for inaction. In other words punitive measures on non-performance are lacking.


Copyright UCT

- 155 -

• There are inadequate incentives to implementer on successful implementation. • Generally there appears to be lack of understanding by the organisation on how to do deal with

implementation effectively. Q: What problems with the implementer that led them not being able to do their job effectively? A: The character of the implementer plays a big role. If he/she does not enthuse people he/she

unlikely to be successful with implementation. Lack of persistence on the implementer is another negative contributor.

Q: You mentioned that “there is a big gap between knowledge and the actual implementation.

What do you think causes that? A: Probably time factor is the issue – there are too many programmes at one go;

• Other programmes get overtaken by events, they get superseded by other things that need to be done;

• People don’t have enough time to plan for implementation; • There is lack of accountability on those who know, lack of systems to assist with the

implementation. Q: Considering that we have the PMS and Disciplinary Process in place, why don’t we have

consequences on non-implementation, as you highlighted before? A: Well look, the Disciplinary Process is reactive. It does not assist in correcting or assisting one to

improve implementation. Disciplinary processes are retributive - they just punish by dismissal. They should be deterrent to be effective. So as it is the disciplinary process is not that useful.

With respect to the PMS, time horizon between assessments is too long and this is problematic. There is a need to get the PMS to be a living system. Now it’s just there to reflect – not to diagnose, test and address. If the assessment cycles were monthly they would enhance the reflective capacity and also we would get time to re-orientate ourselves. For now it is too centralised either at HR or CEO’s Office. It is culture that is inculcated at BU level to deal with variety at that level. In the end it does not have the requisite variety to reflect truly on what was happening throughout the year. You see these systems have a potential but they are not used effectively. Also special initiatives need to be recognised on the dashboard and be scored.

Q: You mentioned inadequacy of incentives to implementers. What do you think leads to this

problem? A: Exactly, this is associated with what we have just spoken about. The BSCs do not capture these

because of time horizon between assessments. Currently cycle for assessments is almost a year. So if good implementation took place, say between March and July, by the time the assessments


Copyright UCT

- 156 -

are carried out such incidents would not be remembered. We do not celebrate good performance as a show case to encourage good performance. For instance why does the PMS not have an award for the best performer in a given year? The culture of performance must not be forced. There’s no carrot here, only a stick – for example there’s too much noise on non-performance and nothing about good performance. The scales are just not balanced.

Q: Lastly, you stated that “people participate because they just want to comply”. Why is that the

case? A: In most instances these programmes/initiatives are sponsored from the high office. It’s the one

that approves the success of implementation. The vertical relationship between the sponsor and the implementer is lax. Things become CEO’s Office things rather the organisation’s. Perhaps the CEO’s Office does not have good skills on communication. And perhaps the CEO’s Office is carrying a very big stick – instead of being a driver of innovation.


with that observation? A: As I have always been saying, the CDC is poor in implementation. Some of the problems start

with the implementer. The programmes that we implement require some prior knowledge of the subject matter. The implementer either appreciates this or does not. In instances where they don’t they just shoot off doing something without ascertaining the exact needs of the people who are supposed to be the direct beneficiaries of the system they are coming up with and/or without finding out more about what they are supposed to be implementing. A typical example is the document management system that never really got popularity throughout the organisation besides the BU that developed it. Secondly the CRM program, which was supposed to be instrumental to Enterprise Development BU was never really sold to them before it was implemented. As a result it was used sub-optimally. In such instances we don’t get the return on investment. In instances where the implementer is aware of some knowledge gap, he/she takes time to implement an initiative, trying to close that knowledge gap. Sometimes they take forever trying to close this gap. Unfortunately the organisation is intolerant to such approaches – it just wants implementation. So this puts more pressure on the implementer who ends being too anxious about the whole situation leading to super inactivity. I am also of the opinion people must find zest in what they do. People in the CDC tend to find themselves forced to do things that do not interest them but they do them because they want to conform. I think that the earnest interest and the drive is what makes people perform to the best of their ability – implementing things they are responsible for and seeing them through! It’s just that we don’t know how to take people where they can excel. In most instances we think that we own people whom we work with, and think that by virtue of our positions we could command them to do as we want!


Copyright UCT

- 157 -

The second area is the organisation itself, how it does things. Right enough it does plan but its approach to planning is very narrow, it’s too abrupt, it’s too haphazard, it changes direction too often for one to appreciate its strategic direction, it’s just undesirably. And at times, while there is a claim that this is due to the environmental changes – I doubt that. I just think that its poor planning, inability to look at things holistically. What appears infront of the nose at that moment becomes the most highly glorified urgent matter on earth that warrants people to drop everything else and focus on it while what is at the feet – far from the eye, may have the most devastating effects if not attended to. Incidentally this is how the pressure around the Supply Chain System came to being. That’s why the organisation is unable to give people time to study the initiative well before implementing it. When last did you hear of a scenario planning session, considering the acclaimed volatility of our organisation’s environment? This is what I call serious planning! The third area to me is the environment itself where the implementation needs to take place. This includes the people and the work environment. In most instances people who are supposed to play ball by contributing their parts in the entire process just don’t do so. They don’t because they are busy chasing their own tails – implementing their own programmes. As such your stuff becomes secondary, if you are lucky. Or it is only if what you seek to do catches the eye of the Man at the Top where he directs people to implement it. So in the end the whole thing becomes a compliance issue – not internalised where its sustainability becomes serious suspect. Do you still remember the project management approach and the need for project charters that needed to be institutionalised? What happened to those? Down the drain! The morale also determines the extent to which people become generally positive about things. A person who has been traumatised by his/her line manager is unlikely to perform to the best of his or her ability – would be stressed most of the time, and be less co-operative. Therefore the leadership style is important as well. For instance the leader or line manager is expected to guide you to success when you are having difficulties – but in most cases they tend to guide you to the door. Without good leadership, implementation in my view will always suffer. The question of shared meaning is also important but is in serious trouble. If people don’t understand where things that they are required to do fit in the entire scheme of things, they are likely not to co-operate. This is informed by the extent to which communication has been carried out and people allowed to voice their views about the issue at hand. Imposing things to people breeds natural resistance – not that people are resisting change per se but that they don’t want to be pushed around and would therefore not co-operate to stand their ground, forcing recognition.

Q: What could be done to address these problems so that implementation is ensured? A: Better planning, focusing on assisting people to implement better rather than focusing on

penalising them. In other words, create an environment where people could excel in what they are good at. Look, this will of cause have its own limitations because there are those who are naturally bad, then get rid of them as they belong elsewhere. That means that your performance management system, which should be aimed at ensuring continuous improvement, must be up to


Copyright UCT

- 158 -

scratch. This thing has to be looked at holistically which I can’t do now because addressing one component leaving out another bottleneck would still compromise the whole process.


Copyright UCT

- 159 -

APPENDIX F: Outcomes of a survey, on the reasons leading to poor implementation of programmes, initiatives, etc.

These are outcomes of a structured survey that was carried out during the last quarter of 2004.

Questionnaires were sent throughout the organisation asking people if they considered implementation

to be problematic and if so to state the reasons for poor implementation. 97% of the respondents

indicated that there were problems with implementation. An Affinity Diagram was used to consolidate

the responses which culminated into the reasons listed below.

(1) Not understanding what needs to be implemented;

(2) Task too complicated therefore difficult to implement;

(3) Negative attitudes (people just don’t care and lack of interest);

(4) Poor planning / non-prioritization;

(5) Time constraints – too many things at one go (people busy with their chores, number of

meetings, volume of e-mails)

(6) Resistance to change;

(7) Frequent change of objectives and priorities;

(8) Lack of accountability and shying away from responsibility;

(9) Lack of follow-up/review process by implementer;

(10) Over-deliberation on issues;

(11) Lack of clarity on where the new system fits into the greater scheme of things;

(12) Double mandating;

(13) Poor communication;

(14) Unaware of importance of implementation;

(15) Poor post-implementation maintenance management;

(16) Corporate politics – depends who’s asking!

(17) Poor support mechanism and resource allocation;

(18) Non-performance;

(19) Disagreement on the need/approach; and

(20) Lack of central co-ordination.

MBLMPU001 Appendix F Jan 2006

Copyright UCT

- 160 -

APPENDIX G: The ID for Barriers to implementation



The Planning Process

(a) Poor planning; (b) Inability to prioritise (=

Poor planning); (c) Lack of focus; (d) Doing too many things at

once (lack of focus); and (e) Leaving things unfinished

(= Too many things at once= Lack of foucs).

• Poor planning • non-prioritization • Frequent change of

objectives and priorities (=Lack of focus);

• Over-deliberation on issues (=disagreement on the approach);

• Disagreement on the need/approach;

• Lack of central co-ordination of initiatives (=Poor planning);

(1) Level of planning (Poor planning);

(2) Degree of focussing (Lack of focus);

(3) Extent of agreement on the approach (Disagreement on the need/approach);


(a) Lack of enthusiasm; (b) Lack of commitment and

dedication (= lack of enthusiasm / will power); and

(c) Knowledge gap

• Non-performance (4) Level of enthusiasm (Lack of enthusiasm)

(5) Level of knowledge (Knowledge gap)

(6) Level of performance (Non-performance)

Process Design None •


(a) Poor communication; and (b) Double mandating (=Poor

planning).

• Double mandating; • Lack of clarity on

where the new system fits (=poor communication);

• Poor communication; • Unaware of importance

of implementation (=poor communication);

(7) Effectiveness of communication (Poor communication)


(a) Lack of discipline to implement;

(b) Lack of commitment (lack of discipline);

(c) Lack of shared meaning, singleness of purpose; and

(d) Poor leadership on execution.

• Negative attitudes • Resistance to change; • Corporate politics

(=attitudes) depends who’s asking;

(8) Level of discipline (Lack of discipline to implement);

(9) Extent of shared meaning (Lack of shared meaning)

(10) Quality of leadership (Poor leadership)

(11) Extent of attitudes (Negative attitudes)

(12) Preparedness to change (Resistance to change)


(a) The gap between theory and practice;

(b) A number of things that

• Not understanding what needs to be implemented (=poor communication)

Knowledge gap Too many things at once

MBLMPU001 Appendix G March 2006

Copyright UCT

- 161 -

people do at once; and (c) Imposing things unto

people (=poor leadership).

• Task too complicated (=knowledge gap) therefore difficult to implement;

• too many things at one go;

• Lack of accountability (Poor PMS);

• Poor support mechanism and resource allocation(=Poor planning);


(a) Ineffective monitoring system;

(b) Poor reporting (=ineffective monitoring system);

(c) Inconsistency in addressing non-performance (=Ineffective PMS);

(d) Inadequacy of incentives.

• Lack of follow-ups (=Ineffective monitoring system)

• Poor post-implementation maintenance management (=Ineffective monitoring system));

•

(13) Effectiveness of monitoring system (Ineffective monitoring system)

(14) Adequacy of incentives (Inadequacy of incentives)


Copyright UCT

- 162 -

Poor planning

Lack of focus

Doing too many things at

once

Lack of enthusiasm, dedication,

passion, drive

Lack of requisite

knowledge to implement

Poorcommunication

Lack of discipline to implement

Lack ofshared

meaning

Poor leadershipon

implementation

Ineffective monitoring

system

Inadequate incentives


Date post:	20-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	lydat
View:	216 times
Download:	3 times