The “Selection, Training, Follow and Evaluation Framework” (STFEF) for Manager’s in Business Innovation Transformation Projects” The Human Factor Antoine Trad and Damir Kalpic IBISM (Switzerland) – Chemin des clairieres 20, 1066 Epalinges, Switzerland Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computing - Unska 3, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
[email protected] and
[email protected] Abstract. One of the most risky factors in transforming a traditional Business Environment (BE) will be the Management of the Human Factor. Once the transformation ends, the control and evaluation of the human factor starts. This paper defines the future framework’s factors that influences the success of the adaptation of the Human Factor to change. The proposed Select , Train, Follow and Evaluate Framework (STFEF) assists managers in managing the human factor. It also establishes the relationship between the transformation, the implementation of Business Process Technologies and the Human Factor.
Keywords. Human Factor, Transformation, Holistic Overview, Risk Evaluation, Business Environment, Innovation. 1. Introduction This paper proposes the use of the future STFEF to help transformation managers and designers in diagnosing some of the problems related to the human factor [8]. It can likewise be used to audit and thus to improve the quality of transformation teams. You can’t manage what you can’t measure” [1], that will be the framework’s general philosophy. The STFEF inherits the author’s previous framework’s characteristics; that was specialized mainly in Information System control transformation [3][4]. More specifically it will be an enhanced version of the human factors management part [2]. One of the crucial success factors in the transformation process is the success of the team’s integration and avoiding its resistance to change [5]. Regardless of the change, the human factor and team dynamics play the major role in the success in the transformation process. This paper tries to define factors that influence successful
team integration and change. It also establishes a starting point for modelling the effects these factors have on the Electronic Lean BEs (ELBE) transformation [2][6]. This paper describes the influence of the innovation’s evolution that will be due to the Internet [7]; and the impact it has on Electronic Lean BEs (ELBE). Innovation that glued the Business and information technology [5]. The initial STFEF concept was described and applied in the “Mobiliere Transformation Project” [10]. Afterwards it was modelled in the proposal for Doctorate of Business Administration (DBA) [9]. The STFEF will be intended to be of interest for Transformation Managers (TMNG), executive members in charge of critical business projects, Human Resources Managers (HRM), auditors and board members [11]. The future framework will contain a heuristical decision model which will help manage the Human Factor in the transformation process [12]. Furthermore the STFEF will offer the possibility to “forecast transformation outcome” depending on the Human Factor risks [13]. Although we have many tools and standards for controlling the Human Factor, until today we still do not have applicable tools, frameworks or theories in the areas of estimating Human Factor risks related to transformations [14]. The STFEF’s human view concentrates on the transformation project’s Human Factor problems and finding the set of possible solutions. The future framework also helps human resources specialists and project managers in establishing proactive control and stabilization procedures. The human view will be used also to define future innovation and change adaptation steps [15].
451 rd
Proceedings of the ITI 2011 33 Int. Conf. on Information Technology Interfaces, June 27-30, 2011, Cavtat, Croatia
This paper defines the set of factors related to the research question, in a holistic manner. Publications are being prepared to define the corresponding research model. This research is in its initial phase [16].
2. A Business Driven Environment Increasingly competitive automated BEs are the main driving forces for investment in the development of flexible and efficient ELBEs. The success of ELBE development, implementation and control influences the way the Human Resources are managed and adapted to change. That consequently forces the ELBE to continuously evolve and improve productivity without neglecting the Human Factor [36].
3. TMNG’s Selection
Unstructured
Strategic Management
Ad Hoc Unscheduled Summarized Infrequent Forward Looking External Wide Scope
Tactical Management
Operational Management
i Experience in human resources management i Knowledge of Human Factor risk evaluation i The ability to act objectively and independently i To be a technocrat and pedagogue, i 10-20 years of experience in complex real world projects as a transformer that managed the Human Factor in the change process, i Multicultural polyvalence, i Straight-forwardness (courage) with the presentation of crucial problems.
i The use of Management sciences [21] i The extensive use of Enterprise Application Integration technologies and Business Processes [24] i Control frameworks
Semi-structured
Structured
The transformation manager’s profile depends on the nature of the mission as well as on the type of the BE [18][19]. Individuals selected to serve as TMNGs and manage the Human Factor through the change process; is recommended to have the following qualifications [20]:
The TMNG manages the Human Factor in transformation by the means of:
Information Characteristics
Decision Structure
3. TMNG’s Profile
Pre-specified Scheduled Detailed Frequent Historical Internal Narrow Focus
Figure 1. The management pyramid [26].
The management is divided into three categories [17], as shown in Fig. 1: i Executive management i Middle management i Production management The TMNGs selection will be based on the following profiles [5]: i Advocates i Technocrats i Samaritans This article concentrates on the technocrats as TMNGs basic human profile.
5. The Research Question The future framework will help the TMNGs in transformation projects in the decision making processes and to monitor the Human Factor. This insures the enhancement of management skills in managing change [22]. The framework’s most important characteristic will be to manage the human risk factor and to avoid failure through proactive assessment of all team members. “Which manager’s background factors influence the transformation process – A Business Processes/TQM approach…” . The research question was hammered for the DBA proposal in April 2011 [16][37][38].
452
6. The Research Methodology This research work will be majorly focused on Analytical Applicative Research; based on the use of technology, innovation and organisational change. This Analytical Applicative Research will be mainly an Action Research system [22][37].
Furthermore, BE transformation risk evaluation requires a number of different views, in order to localise and correct the encountered serious transformation problems. Hence multiple BE views are needed to be analysed, in relation to the human view.
7. The human view’s hypothesis This research’ objectives are to propose a set of factors to improve managerial aspects and to support the manager in his human related tasks. The
main
hypotheses
are:
i Manage the Human Factor during the change process i Effectiveness in taking the optimal decisions i Efficiency in optimizing the human related business processes at all levels i Accountability in case of project failure i How to define a clear vision and communicate it to all project actors? i How to link the vision to a “Business Plan” and then map it to the frameworks metrics? i Which strategy should the manager follow? i How to use these Human Factor metrics with the BE?
GLOBAL VIEW
(GLOBV)
The Team View The Innovation View The Domain View The Security View The System Design View The Organisational View The Financial View The Legal View The Political View The Control View
(TEAMV) (INNOV) (DOMV) (SECUV) (SYSDV) (ORGAV) (FINAV) (LEGAV) (POLIV) (AUDV)
Figure 2. The views [4].
The human view will be a set of factors, especially selected in order to carry out the risk evaluation process from the human perspective. We have experienced in practice that the innovation as well as the human views are the most commonly used ones.
10. The Team Design Model (TDM) This section presents the team's design model that will be based on an enterprise architecture model [30].
8. STFEF Factors and Views The STFEF will be composed of categories of factors, where each category can contain one or more of these factors [32]. This pool of factors plays a major role in determining the transformation status [33]. The human factors are independent of all other STFEF Components or other Views. The human view will be defined as a set of one or more factors. For the transformation the significant factors are determined using the STFEF’s Decision Support Components [3][4].
9. The Human View
Figure 3. The previous TDQCC flow [2].
Ideally, the entire BE could be described in a single view that should define the transformation unambiguously. However, a single view cannot capture all the information encapsulated within it.
This section’s aim will be to explain the relationships (or dependencies) between the framework’s human view, TDM and the transformation process.
453
Global Transparency Factor (GTF) Autonomy Importance Responsibility (AIR) Technical Evolution Factor (TEF) Sufficient Material Resources (SMR) Audit Activities Acceptance (AAA) Political Stability Factor (PSF)
The TDM (and the framework’s human view) has a direct and important effect on the transformation process outcomes [25].
10.1
The Project-Team Dependency
The human resources managers, BE designers and the TMNG must design the transformation team. Once the 'Project System Requirement Definition' and the 'Project System Design' phases have been successfully terminated, then the overall transformation design starts.
10.2
The Project-Team Flow
The future framework’s human view should be evaluated at the project's major milestones. The framework’s factors can be evaluated once the Team Design and the Team Implementation phases were terminated. These phases must map to the project's plan. In the case the evaluation result is inappropriate, the transformation manager faces two possibilities: i The situation is correctable: then correct and retry evaluation i The situation will be critical: then stop the project
11. The framework’s human factors The framework’s Human Factor’s are [31]: Project Team Leader Turnover Factor Problem Overflow Phenomena Major Team's Goal Mentality & Cultural Issues Communication Flow Factor Cracks Control Phenomena Healthy Environment Set-up Member Temperament Influence Team Taboos Set Domain Complexity Factor Technical Complexity Factor Career Goals Definition Tasks Clear Definition Market Job Possibilities Team Deadline Factor Client Team Synchronization Team Co-ordination/Synch Hierarchy and Role Distribution
(PTL) (TOF) (POP) (MTG) (MCI) (CFF) (CCP) (HES) (MTI) (TTS) (DCF) (TCF) (CGD) (TCD) (MJP) (TDF) (CTS) (TCS) (HRD)
Once the framework’s human view and factors were selected, the TMNG can estimate its influence on the transformation process.
12. Evaluation of the Transformation Process (ETP) During this phase the ELBE components will be frozen. The ETP evaluates the transformation results, and if successful, then the next transformation iteration will be started [27]. Otherwise, in case of failure, a major team redesign will be necessary, and the following will be recommended: i To transform the BE and reuse the healthy business components, i Apply an audit to understand what caused the BE transformation failure [33][13] i To modify the Human Factor change process
13. Innovative technology and the Human Factor The STFEF will be technology independent, and will be applied in a highly complex transformation. The use of business process and services allows the production of highly reusable business modules at a higher quality standard and a better coordination between different project teams [31][35].
14. The Qualification Process (QP) Once the decision was made to transform the BE using the results of CIT (that will be mainly based on the decision support’s information estimations), then the Qualification Process starts [28][29].
15. The Domain Analysis Process (DAP) The DAP’s process’s main aim will be to transform the business processes and their requirements.
454
The end-users assist the requirements verification process. The DAP team concentrates on the BE functionalities and stops the introduction of any new requirement. A special team must be designed for such a transformation [31].
16. Conclusion This will be the first article in a series of articles that will be published in relation to the research in which the author will be managing. This research tries to define role of the transformation manager and his relations to the high failure rates. This researches’ result will be a framework to help the transformation managers [38][39]. On most transformations, the human factor, team design and their integration issues are not sufficiently analysed. That can cause serious problems to the transformation process, important budgets loses or even project failure. The future framework’s human view evaluates the team's quality factor, which helps the team designer correct the team's weaknesses. It is recommended that the team designer works with the project designer in order to build a feasible project-team model. Deriving from his own experience, the author has made an attempt in this paper to quantify some subjective factors and to estimate their impact to the transformation process. The author does not pretend to try to solve such a difficult problem, as the forecast of a transformation outcome. He is well aware of the fact that the evaluation of the proposed metrics should derive from a statistical analysis of a significant number of cases with known team evaluations and final project outcomes. However, he still believes that his proposed framework and the Human Factors might be of some help in complex transformation processes. In line with the evolution of the Internet innovation [34]; the ELBE evolved towards automated complex enterprise architecture. Consequently, the transformed ELBE personnel need to be adapted to such a change. Like on most of business transformation projects, the ELBE shouldn’t be built just to work and the TMNG should be equipped with a framework to improve the Human Factor integration and avoid resistance [5]. The STFEF human view helps the TMNG evaluate the actual BE and propose a set of
actions to be taken in order to transform into an ELBE; and avoid possible resistances. The main goal will be to avoid a complete BE rebuild; and recommend an iterative and cautious Human Factor integration for the conversion to a liveable ELBE. To support such a complex integration of Human Factor, a heuristical evaluation process will be used [22].
17. References [1] Chaffey, D., Ellis-Chadwick, F., Johnston, K., Mayer, Internet Marketing, Strategy, Implementation and Practice, 4th Edition, 2008, Pearson, USA. [2] Trad, A., The Team Design Quality Check Coefficient – The TDQCC. Conference on Information Technology Interfaces; Dubrovnik; 1998. [3] Trad, A. “ISRQCC”, INFORMATION SYSTEM RISK AND QUALITY CHECK Doctoral Research. Zagreb, Croatia: Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computing, 2002. [4] Trad, A., Kalpic, D., "Proactive Monitoring of the Information System Risk and Quality", ITI 2002, Cavtat, Crotia. [5] Farhoomand, A., Lynne Markus, M., Guy Gable , G., Khan, Sh., Managing (e)business Transformation: A Global Perspective, Palgrave Macmillan, UK, 2004. [6] Trad, A., Kalpic, D., A Holistic Overview of the Manager’s Performance Evaluation Framework for Strategic Business Transformation Projects, ITI 2011, Dubrovnik, 2011. [7] Smith, H.,Fingar, P. "Business Process Management (Business Processes): The Third Wave", Meghan-Kiffer Press, USA2003. [8] Kalpic, D., Baranovic, M. and Fertalj, K., (1997), "How to Organise a University Based R&D and Teaching Group in Computing". Proc. Of the world multiconference on systemics, cybernetics and informatics, Caracas/Venezuela 7-11 Jul 1997 [9] Trad, A., " The Manager’s Performance Evaluation Framework for “Strategic” Business Transformation Projects” DBA proposal", Geneva, 2010. [10] Trad, A., "The Mobilere Transformation Project, by the use of BPEL", Geneva, 2008.
455
[11] Dayton, D., editor. Information Technology Transform Handbook. USA: Daytonassociates 1999. [12] Schmidt, J., Lyle, D., Lean Integration: An Integration Factory Approach to Business Agility, Addison-Wesley Professional, 2010, USA. [13] Alvin A Arens, A., Elder, R., Beasley, M., Auditing and Assurance Services: An Integrated Approach, 13/E, Prentice Hall, 2010, USA. [14] ISACA-S, editor. Standards For Information Systems Transformationing, USA: ISACA; 1998. [15] Trad, A. Transformation Quality and Risk Check (RQRC) – Theoretical Basis. In Kalpic, D, editor. Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Information Technology Interfaces; 1999 Jun 15-18; Pula, Croatia. Zagreb: SRCE University Computing Center, University of Zagreb; 1999. p. 497-502. [16] Trad, A., The “Selection, Training, Follow and Evaluation Framework” (STFEF) for Manager’s in Business Innovation Transformation Projects - The Research Question”, GEM, France, 2011. [17] Laudon, K., Laudon, J., Management Information Systems, 11th Edition, Prentice Hall, 2010, USA. [18] Trad, A., Swissair. The Unified Stability Model. Kloten, Switzerland: SAirGroup;1995. [19] Trad, A., Kalpic, D, Fertalj, K. Proactive business monitoring of the information system risk and quality. Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Information Technology Interfaces; 2002 Jun 24-27; Dubrovnik, Croatia. Zagreb: SRCE University Computing Center, University of Zagreb; 2002. p. 497-502. [20] Derrien, Y., “Les techniques de audit informatique”, DUNOD, F (1992). [21] Daellenbach, H.G., McNickle, D.C., Management Science – Decision Making Through Systems Thinking, Palgrave Macmillian, USA, 2005. [22] Render, B., Stair, R., Hanna, M., Quantitative Analysis for Management, 11/E, Prentice Hall, 2010. [23] Chanaron, E.,"DBA Workshop", GEM, France, 2010. [24] David S. Linthicum, D., Enterprise Application Integration, Addison-Wesley Professional, 2000, USA.
[25] Meier, R., (1997), "Team Power". Die Deutsche Bibliothek CIP Einheitsaufnahme, Germany. [26] Seref, M., Ahuja, R., Wayne, W., “Developing Spreadsheet-Based Decision Support Systems”, Dynamic Ideas, USA, 2007. [27] Trad, A. Risk Estimation In Building Object Oriented Systems, Masters Degree. Zagreb, Croatia: Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computing; 1995. [28] Saunders, M., Lewis, Ph., Thornhill, A., "Research frameworks for business Students", Fifth Edition, Pearson, UK, 2009. [29] Anderson, D., Sweeney, J., “The Management Scientist - The Tutorial” University of Cincinnati, USA, 2004 [30] The Open Group, “TOGAF Version 9”, USA, 2010. [31] Gold-Bernstein, B., William, R., Enterprise Integration: The Essential Guide to Integration Solutions, Perason, 2005, USA. [32] Thomas Erl, T., "Service-Oriented Architecture: Concepts, Technology & Design", Prentice Hall/Pearson. [33] SOA Principles of Service Design by Thomas Erl [34] Newcomer, E.,"Understanding Web Services: XML, WSDL, SOAP, and UDDI", Independent Technology Guides, 2003, USA. [35] David M. Papurt, editor. Inside the Object Model - The Sensible Use of C++. USA: Sigs Books; 1995. [36] Mathis, R., Jackson, J., Human Resources Management, 12e, Cengage, 2008, USA. [37] Quantitative, Positivist Research Methods in Information Systems, dstraub.cis.gsu.edu:88/quant/2philo.asp [38] Trad, A., The “Selection, Training, Follow and Evaluation Framework” (STFEF) for Manager’s in Business Innovation Transformation Projects - The Propsal”, GEM, France, 2011. [39] Trad, A., The “Selection, Training, Follow and Evaluation Framework” (STFEF) for Manager’s in Business Innovation Transformation Projects - The Research Design”, GEM, France, 2011.
456
