Posted at 11.30.2018
In the very beginning it has already been mentioned in the finding of this report about the factors which cause resistance to improve. The two major reasons apparently identified for resistance to change are the fear of losing the job status and job security. The mentality of an individual varies accordingly and there are multiple factors which influence the human thinking. Attitude towards change is a similar exemplory case of this rather than everyone take it positively. Fear of losing here refers to the risk of undertaking the change process unsuccessfully. The moral of the individuals could go low if the results of the change don't succeed and the individuals are mainly scared of failure so they don't really want to experiment new things which acts as a barrier to change. Another major reason found which resists change was the work security and the work status of the employees. Here worries is that the individual could lose their strong position and command due to change being adopted and almost all of the employees in the business aren't really keen to risk their status or job itself. So far as literature can be involved upon this topic Lewin's (1940) views were to get this research, he presented his views on resistance to improve linked to the human behavior that was also the truth at shell, the staff resisted when the theory was presented to implement SAP over JD Edwards. Besides that the findings can also be related with the research of Schermerhorn, Hunt, and Osborn (2005) who said that the individuals resist change to safeguard their interests and also to defend the elements that happen to be valuable to them, findings in this research present a similar picture as it can be concluded from the study that folks resist change due to the fact of fear of losing and protecting their job and job status. Eight step reasons determined by Schermerhorn, Hunt, and Osborn (2005) are also nearly the same as all the reason why for resistance to change mentioned in the findings section.
Coch & French (1948) also researched on this topic and their research was conducted in Virginia in a Harwood, manufacturing company, their findings suggests that the individual's insufficient desire for the change process and no participation of their side is the major cause of resistance to change. Somehow there's a disagreement with his concept upon this as the findings above do not include such factor of lack of interest or participation in the set of resistance to change. His work was also challenged by Lawrence (1954) and he said that the findings of Coch and French were misleading as they were away from the reality in their research. Then suggested a set of explanations why people resist change, that list is mentioned in the literature review section and again a disagreement on his concept as his reasons given were also near to the findings above. The main reason suggested by Lawrence was that folks resist change because the results is unknown to them and the other major reason given was that there surely is too little trust among staff and thus they resist change which reason was also mentioned in the findings therefore the idea of Lawrence on resistance to change is to get this research.
There are extensive models which have been suggested by different scholars to cope with the resistance to change. Kotter & Schlesingers six step model is widely accepted in the industry besides that Lewins 3 stage model is extremely popular as well. Few other models for dealing with resistance covered in the research are force field analysis, Greminis 4 R's, Greniers Organisational growth for organisational learning etc. However after conducting the research and surveying in the industry and getting feedback from individuals from different organisations, it can be concluded that the Kotter six steps and Lewins three stage model of unfreezing, change and refreezing are the most accepted and understood models for change found in the organisation. These two models cover all the important aspects which are normally required within an organisation when dealing with change. Discussion has been manufactured in the findings on the concepts of organisational learning and organisational growth and the Greniers model for organisational growth since these subject areas are no not the same as the main topic of change management. The findings from the research conducted in Barclays and Reckitt Benckiser is in support of Kotter notion of managing resistance, the commonly found resistance in both companies is usually managed by one of six steps presented by Kotter or sometimes multiple steps could be utilized to deal with resistance.
The topic has been covered in the literature review since the research study of Shell can be an exemplory case of business process re-engineering. BPR usually involves radical redesigning of a process in terms of cost, quality, speed or service to enhance the conditions considerably within virtually no time, the BPR process also requires fundamental rethinking of the ways businesses are carried out within an organisation. Shell desired to change its ERP system JD Edwards and implemented SAP over it to be able to standardize its process and remove complexities, this may be termed as a good example of BPR. The primary findings of the research can be related to the literature presented by Hammer and Champy, and Wenrich and Ahmed, they felt that the concept of BPR is usually from the ERP implementation and the case in Shell was one example of this. Besides that concept is also supported by the idea of Chan and Peel who conducted their research upon this topic in a number of companies and their findings shows that the main reason for BPR is improving on the organisational efficiency in procedures and also raising the level of customer service. Shell implemented the BPR to increase its efficiency.
There are various risks related to the transformation process in Shell which have been identified in the findings section, the major ones being the reputational risk, high project cost and desired results not being achieved. As Shell is a huge name in the global market and holds a good reputation in the industry so failure to handle this process could have damaged the reputation of the organisation as the investment was of more than 100 billion euros so the degree of risk went higher with the massive cost. Primary findings of the report tend to be near the views presented by Butterworth-Heinemann, as he has described the risks related to the system changeover in his research and the risks covered by him are extremely comparable to findings above. He has only centered on the potential risks related to the system changeover and the normal risks discovered in the findings above and his research are data conversion, user acceptance of change, system interfaces and integration and person involvement. So in comparison to Proscis concept discussed above, it is clear that Butterworths idea of risks faced in change management is more agreeable as the literature is more like the research above. Alternatively Proscis take on risks is more general and related to the precise project and the organization as a whole. The risks discovered by him tend to be more general like the client and supplier view, resistance in general, budgeting issues, negative impact, stress, conflicts and misunderstandings amongst staff, etc, it is not specifically from the system changeover so the primary findings are in more support of Butterworths work over Proscis concept
Shell transformed its ERP JD Edwards to SAP as discussed above, and the primary reason being to improve the efficiency also to standardize the global policies. The reasons for the change have been completely discussed above and to summarize, the major factors which pushed Shell to the change were simplification of processes and make the utilization of latest technology. The change at Shell would be classified as a planned change, various views have come in the front regarding planned change but the most attractive take on this issue was presented by Burke & George Latwin, and Kotter. Burke & George presented a model where the change was classified as transactional or transformational. The change adopted in Shell could be referred to as transactional change, as the basics of the organisation remained same in support of some top features of the business changed. Another scholar making sense is Kotters, he presented his ideas on planned change in the eight steps model and every one of the components for the reason that model are all completely linked to the heart of the organisation and are specifically focused on the idea of change. The other theories discussed in the literature review are mostly the example of incremental change which is the change applied in steps, and after conducting the research on the types of change it was found that Quinn concept seemed appropriate, he suggested that the incremental change was resulting in a slow death while the radical change headed towards irreversible transformation. The change at Shell had not been an incremental change. In Shell Pakistan the change was implemented in formal steps and a proper procedure was being used which has been discussed above in the findings. By the end of the research it was discovered that the process of change in Shell was much organised as the management conducted surveys, authorities and tasks were very clearly defined plus they made the utilization of a change agent who initiated the process and pushed the others to check out it. The change at Shell in conditions of organisational level was an example of operational change. This can said because the operational change talks about the concepts of BPR, TQM, continuous improvements, JIT etc, and each one of these were considered at Shell through the transformation stage. Pettigrew differentiated the types of change and said in his research that the operational level change are taken at a small score and aren't important in the organisation. I firmly disagree along with his ideas and believe that the operational level change is simply as important as change at any other level. The change in Shell was an operational level change but it was quite definitely required and wasn't a tiny scale project since an enormous investment was made, the findings suggest that the change implemented was very effective and the organisation succeeded in obtaining their goal.
From the findings above it can be concluded that the employees in Shell Pakistan were not very content with the performance of JD Edwards as an ERP. The feedback was taken through the questionnaire completed by them to discover how they feel about the system and also to summarize their views in a nut shell they did not feel that JD Edwards was a flexible enough tool for the merchandise reconciliations and it in addition they felt it was not the perfect system which could be utilized for reporting purposes. Rowena Hawksley had a different view about the machine and She said it is a valuable system for the business enterprise to utilize for Asset lifecycle management, inventory control, supply chain execution, manufacturing and engineering purposes etc, but a disagreement is reached from his ideas as the findings in this report on Shell differs from the views presented.
With regards to ERP many scholars have presented their views and few of them are also covered in my own literature review, ERP was best described by Gale, he viewed ERP as an important tool for business to manage operations, that will integrate found in Shell Pakistan through the implementation of SAP. According to Richard Goekey and Robert Faley the SAP implementation in chemical and Pharmaceutical industry has not been very successful in conditions of inventory management in the organisation, it can't be agreed as the implementation of SAP in organisation from any industry has led to dramatic turnarounds and even in Shell the results obtained following the SAP implementation has been positive and the objectives were achieved. Duplagia and Astani said that the integration between functional areas and information system is the principal reason for companies implementing ERP, the same was the case at Shell as the organisation planned to standardise its processes so implemented ERP, therefore the views of Duplagia and Astani could be related to the study conducted above.
SAP implementation has prevailed in Shell Pakistan and the results obtained have been positive. The moral level of the users has improved and the implementation has led to cost saving and reducing complexities in the organisation. Suzanne Gaut, presented a best practice approach for the SAP implementation, the approach was split into two major categories thought as the key individual required in the SAP implementation and quite elements needed in the implementation stage. The details have been discussed above and the best practice support was virtually followed in Shell Pakistan during the implementation of SAP. Suzanne focused on the actual fact that the project manager, users of the system, maintenance member, account member, etc should all be engaged and participate through the implementation phase to get the required results. The findings of this report suggests that yes Shell had most of its key members involved during the implementation and the survey undertaken describes the attitude of staff towards of change, it says that almost all of the members were available to change and welcomed the thought of SAP implementation.
The line managers were assigned obligations in Shell for the SAP implementation and the staffs expressed their satisfaction with the performance and accepted that the managers fulfilled their responsibilities properly and also were keen to provide training and transfer knowledge on the project in order to help the group as a whole and make this project successful. The other area of the practice suggested by Suzanne was including important elements required in the SAP implementation. Few of the important elements were aim and objectives of the project, people expectations, purchasing, operational, financial and contracting strategies, and computer based training etc. Again the truth at Shell seemed to be following each one of these instructions and the management got all quite procedures completed before and through the implementation. The change agent appointed by Shell helped in carrying out the procedure and helped in selling the thought of change and recorded the vital steps to be understood and completed. At Shell the control methods were in spot to protect the info loss in support of authorise individuals were granted access. The usage of multiple passwords of ten digits each was made to keep up with the integrity. Results obtained in Shell post implementation of SAP were better and the issues of product traceability, reconciliations and overall flexibility were resolved that was not the case when JD Edwards was used. The views of Suzanne Gaut will be more related to the implementation process completed in Shell, most of the points presented by Suzanne have been included in Shell through the implementation.