You are on page 1of 17

Lovely professional university

Term paper of human resources


Submitted by-Vinit Kumar


REG NO- 10902156

I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude

towards all those people who have helped me in the successful
completion of this term paper, directly or indirectly. I would
also like to express my sincere gratitude towards Miss Alka
Sharma (my term paper guide) for her guidance and help
which she willingly provided at every step of my term paper.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction
2. Objective
3. Review of literature
4 Introduction of HCL
5. Effective change process in HCL
7. Conclusion
8. Bibliography
Change management

Change management is a structured approach to transitioning individuals,

teams, and organizations from a current state to a desired future state. Change
management (or change control) is the process during which the changes of a
system are implemented in a controlled manner by following a pre-defined
framework/model with, to some extent, reasonable modifications. In project
management, change management refers to a project management process
where changes to a project are formally introduced and approved.

The field of change management grew from the recognition that organizations
are composed of people. And the behaviors of people make up the outputs of an

Change must be realistic and attainable. The cooperation of all stakeholders is a

matter of necessity. Instead of forcing a change, it is better to ensure that a
reasonable number of stakeholders buy into the change and the process of
effecting the change. Criticism should be encouraged from the proponents and
opponents of the change and should be objectively analyzed. Every change
process should begin with asking at least four basic questions:

1. What needs to be changed? Change should not be introduced into the

system just for the sake of it. Changes can be induced from within the organization or
outside of it. In either case, the question of what to change is critical. The question is best
answered when the limitations of the present process are identified. The answer to this
question should be able
to address why the change is necessary.

2. To what should it be changed? It is one thing to know that there is a

need to effect changes in the present system, but another critical question is to what it
should be changed. Change cannot be justified if the organization does not know of a better
alternative to the current system/process. The proposed change must offer better benefits to
the system than the current system does.

3. How should this change happen? This question is as relevant

as the first two questions. Some laudable process changes (that successfully answer
the first two questions) end as disasters, and all the management time and
investments are wasted because the question of how to make the change happen was
not properly addressed.
Whatever approach is adapted to effect the change must address the issue of how to ensure
no or minimal disruption to the system and must effect the change at a minimal cost.

4. How can the change be sustained? This question may be the

most critical of the four. The question, if properly answered, justifies the wisdom behind the
change. The three previous questions might be answered correctly, but if the question of
how to sustain the change is not well addressed, all the efforts are merely a waste in the
long run. This is the
stage where many process changes face turbulent storms and, when they fail, it is said they
were “not able to stand the test of time.”

Types of Organizational Change

1. Strategic changes
2. Technological changes
3. Structural changes
4. Changing the attitudes and behaviors of personnel

As a multidisciplinary practice, Organizational Change Management requires

for example: creative marketing to enable communication between change
audiences, but also deep social understanding about leadership’s styles and
group dynamics. As a visible track on transformation projects, Organizational
Change Management aligns groups’ expectations, communicates, integrates
teams and manages people training. It make use of metrics, such as leader’s
commitment, communication effectiveness, and the perceived need for change
to design accurate strategies, in order to avoid change failures or solve troubled
change projects.

Scope of change

The purpose of defining these change management areas is to ensure that there
is a common understanding among readers. Tools or components of change
management include:

• Change management process

• Readiness assessments
• Communication and communication planning
• Coaching and manager training for change management
• Training and employee training development
• Sponsor activities and sponsor roadmaps
• Resistance management
• Data collection, feedback analysis and corrective action
• Celebrating and recognizing success
Challenges of

Change is a departure from an existing process or way of doing something, to a new process
or a different way of doing the same thing. A process change can be an amendment to
existing processes, an introduction of a new process or both. For example, a manual system
can be redefined or automated, or an automated system can be upgraded, complemented or
replaced entirely with new packages. These changes are also known as business process
reengineering (BPR).

Changes in any form are intended to better the organization over the short term and/or long
term. However, no matter how marketable change ideas are, they can be frustrated
purposefully or inadvertently if they are not well managed during all stages. Poor
management often causes the huge investments in the change process and the high
expectations that come with the ideas to turn to huge disappointments.

Some changes are introduced with fanfare, but not long after commencement of their
implementation, they meet impediments that would have been avoidable or surmountable if
they had been identified and managed promptly in the early stages. Instances abound where
organizations’ accounts remain irreconcilable due to process automation, system upgrade or
introduction of entirely new packages. There is no doubt that such a process change at the
point of conception, evaluation and/or implementation requires a great deal of financial
resources and management time and leads to high expectations. Therefore, any failure can be
disastrous. To prevent such a failure, attention should be given to change management at all

Managers in this sense see events taking place that, to them, signal the need for
change. They also perceive the internal context of change as it relates to Structure,
culture, systems of power and control, which gives those further clues about whether it is
worth trying to introduce change. But what causes change? What factors need to be
considered when we look for the causal affects which run from A to B in an

The change may occur in response to the:

Changes in technology used
Changes in customer expectations or tastes
Changes as a result of competition
Changes as a result of government legislation
Changes as a result of alterations in the economy at home or abroad
Changes in communication media
Changes in society’s value systems
Changes in the supply chain
Changes in the distribution chain
Internal changes can be seen as responses or reactions to the outside world which are
regarded as external triggers. There are also a large number of factors which lead to
what are termed internal triggers for change. Organization redesigns to fit a new product
line or new marketing strategy are typical examples, as are changes in job
responsibilities to fit new organizational structures. The final cause of change in
organizations is where the organization tries to be ahead of change by being proactive.
For example, where the Organization tries to anticipate problems in the marketplace or
negate the impact of worldwide recession on its own business, proactive change is
taking place.

Planned Change
Planned organizational change is normally targeted at improving Effectiveness at one or
more of four different levels: human resources, functional resources, technological
capabilities, and organizational capabilities.

Human Resources:

Human resources are an organization’s most important asset. Ultimately, an

organization’s distinctive competencies lie in the skills and abilities of its employees.
Because these skills and abilities give an organization a competitive advantage,
organizations must continually monitor their structures to find the most effective way of
motivating and organizing human resources to acquire and use their skills. Typical kinds
of change efforts directed at human resources include: (i) new investment in training and
development activities so that employees acquire new skills and abilities; (ii) socializing
employees into the organizational culture so that they learn the new routines on which
organizational performance depends; (iii) changing organizational norms and values to
motivate a multi-cultural and diverse work force; (iv) ongoing examination of the way in
which promotion and reward systems operate in a diverse work force; and (v) changing
the composition of the top-management team to improve organizational learning and
decision making.

Functional Resources: Each organizational function needs to develop procedures that

allow it to manage the particular environment it faces. As the environment changes,
organizations often transfer resources to the functions where the most value can be
created. Critical functions grow in importance, while those whose usefulness is declining
shrink. An organization can improve the value that its functions create by changing its
structure, culture, and technology. The change from a functional to a product team
structure, for example, may speed the new product development process. Alterations in
functional structure can help provide a setting in which people are motivated to perform.
The change from traditional mass production to a manufacturing operation based on
self-managed work teams often allows companies to increase product quality and
productivity if employees can share in the gains from the new work system.

Technological Capabilities: Technological capabilities give an organization a normous

capacity to change itself in order to exploit market opportunities. The ability to develop a
constant stream of new products or to modify existing products so that they continue to
attract customers is one of an organization’s core competencies. Similarly, the ability to
improve the way goods and services are produced in order to increase their quality and
reliability is a crucial organizational capability. At the organizational level, an has to
provide the context that allows it to translate its technological competencies into value
for its stakeholders. This task often involves the redesign of organizational activities.
IBM, for example, has recently moved to change its organizational structure to better
capitalize on its strengths in providing IT consulting. Previously, it was unable to
translate its technical capabilities into commercial opportunities because its structure
was not focused on consulting, but on making and selling computer hardware and
software rather than providing advice.

Organizational Capabilities: Through the design of organizational structure and

culture an organization can harness its human and functional resources to take
advantage of technological opportunities. Organizational change often involves changing
the relationship between people and functions to increase their ability to create value.
Changes in structure and culture take place at all levels of the organization and include
changing the routines an individual uses to greet customers, changing work group
relationships, improving integration between divisions, and changing corporate culture
by changing the top management team.
These four levels at which change can take place are obviously interdependent, it is
often impossible to change one without changing another. Suppose an organization
invests resources and recruits a team of scientists who are experts in a new technology
– for example, biotechnology. If successful, this human resource change will lead to the
emergence of a new functional resource and a new technological capability. Top
management will be forced to revaluate its organizational structure and the way it
integrates and coordinates its other functions, to ensure that they support its new
functional resources. Effectively utilizing the new resources may require a move to a
product team structure. It may even require downsizing and the elimination of functions
that are no longer central to the organization’s mission.


1. To analysis effective change process in an organisation.

2. To analysis the factor that influence a company to choose an
effective change process.
3. To study the opinion about the change process in an

. A.J. BAKER (1979) the general aim is to represent managerial thinking on

strategy choice in a context other than steady-state growth. The model has the
following features: (i) Strategy choice is defined as the adoption of rules governing
investment choice; (ii) given its strategy, management sees growth in terms of a
probability distribution of growth-paths of expected dividend; (iii) management’s
valuation model closely matches its probabilistic view of growth prospects; (iv) the
managerial utility function has an extended horizon. Discussion of strategy choice
yields no general presumption that management senses a conflict between its own
preference and its commonsense interpretation of investors' preferences. Keith
Alexander (1992) is the first in a series of articles and introduces the key
facilities management skills necessary for achieving the business objectives of the
new, changing organization. The level at which these skills are employed by
organizations will determine the future shape of the profession. Roger
Stubbs (1994) Extract from the report made by Sundridge Park Management
Centre and MORI, in making the 1993 British Quality of Management Awards.
Looks at management capabilities and questions whether UK managers provide
the leadership and competence necessary in today's competitive climate. The
training directors were then queried on the degree of difficulty experienced in
executing each of the problem-solving process steps. Evaluating the solution
and final evaluation were shown to be the significantly most difficult steps to
execute, and forming a team and identifying the problem were shown to be the
least difficult steps; but the level of difficulty was not found to be related to the
training technique used. John S. Rogers, Phillip A. Farrington, Bernard J. Schreyer,
Randall G. Hubbard(1994) Presents a description of an automated
manufacturing process planning (AMPP) system developed by the US Army Missile
Command (MICOM) at Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, that integrates computer aided design,
computer aided process planning and computer aided manufacturing systems. The AMPP
system automatically generates process plans and numerical control code to fabricate
turned cylindrical parts. The AMPP system is available for demonstration at the AIDT
Alabama Center for Advanced Technology Transfer (ACATT) in Huntsville K.T. Lee, Alaine
K. Sommerville (1996) presents a case study of quality management approaches in
a specialist higher education college. Provides the background to this situation and
discusses how and why changes have been implemented. In particular, gives details
of the new college philosophy and how it was derived. Hence, comments on the
value of the kaizen approach at this institution Cynthia S. McCahon,
Margaret J. Rys, Kenneth H. Ward (1996) A questionnaire
surveying the type of training technique used (lecture, workshop, videotape, role
playing, self tutorial (workbook) and self-tutorial (computer)) for each of the seven
steps in the quality improvement problem-solving process was sent to 180
training directors in firms stating their participation in a quality improvement
strategy. K.B. Chuah (2001) in recent years, three key topics under the big
umbrella of business process improvement (BPI) has been continuous process
improvement (CPI), business process reengineering (BPR), and business
process benchmarking (BPB). Each has received much
attention and has been supported by a considerable amount of literature and
empirical research and findings from business consultants and academics. Within
the manufacturing domain, these three topics have been accepted by many
manufacturing process analysts striving to improve productivity and efficiency of
companies. However, organization structures in manufacturing enterprises
are complex and involve many different processes. Their needs may be quite
different. One process may require an incremental improvement in critical areas or
technology updating in its existing operation while others may need a total
enterprise-wide process revamp. In other words, CPI, BPR, and BPB’s usefulness
and applicability may not be universal; one or a combination of the two or
three may be more appropriate, depending on the process, organization and
its environment. An improvement framework which
incorporates the characteristics of the three
approaches has been developed. This paper describes the methodology, SUPER,
and its use in a real case study.


HCL Technologies is a global IT Services company headquartered in Noida, a

suburb of Delhi, India led by Mr. Vineet Nayar, HCL Technologies, along with
its subsidiaries, had consolidated revenues of US$ 5 billion, as of 2010, and
employed more than 60,000 workers. HCL offers services including software-
led IT solutions, remote infrastructure management, Engineering and R&D
Services and BPO. The company provides services across industries including
Financial Services, Retail & Consumer, Life Sciences & Healthcare, Aerospace
& Defence, Automotive, Telecom and Media, Publishing and Entertainment,
amongst others. HCL’s key services include:

• Custom Application Services

• Enterprise Application Services
• Enterprise Transformation Services
• Engineering and R&D Services
• Infrastructure Management
• Business Processing Outsourcing



Organizational change involves moving from the known to the unknown.
Because the future is uncertain and may adversely affect people's
competencies, worth, and coping abilities, organization members
generally do not support change unless compelling reasons convince them
to do so. This requires attention to two related tasks: creating readiness
for change and overcoming resistance to change.

2. Creating Readiness for Change

one of the more fundamental axioms of OD is that people's readiness for
change depends on creating a felt need for change. This involves making
people so dissatisfied with the status quo that they are motivated to try
new work processes, technologies, or ways of behaving. The following
three methods can help generate sufficient dissatisfaction to produce

1. Sensitize organizations to pressures for change.

2. Reveal discrepancies between current and desired states.
3. Convey credible positive expectations for the change.

3. Overcoming Resistance to Change

At the organization level, resistance to change can come from three

sources. Technical resistance comes from the habit of following common
procedures and the consideration of sunk costs invested in the status quo.
Political resistance can arise when organizational changes threaten
powerful stakeholders, such as top executive or staff personnel, or call
into question the past decisions of leaders. Finally, culture resistance
takes the form of systems and procedures that reinforce the status quo,
promoting conformity to existing values, norms, and assumptions about
how things should operate.


The second activity in leading and managing change involves creating a

vision of what members want the organization to look like or become.
Generally, a vision describes the core values and purpose that guide the
organization as well as an envisioned future toward which change is
directed. It provides a valued direction for designing, implementing, and
assessing organizational changes. The vision also can energize
commitment to change by providing members with a common goal and a
compelling rationale for why change is necessary and worth the effort.

Research by Collins and Pores suggests that compelling visions are

composed of two parts: (1) a relatively stable core ideology that describes
the organization's core values and purpose, and (2) an envisioned future
with bold goals and a vivid description of the desired future state that
reflects the specific change under consideration.
Managing the political dynamics of change includes the following
- Assessing Change Agent Power
- Identifying Key Stakeholders
- Influencing Stakeholders


Implementing organizational change involves moving from the existing
organization state to the desired future state. There are three major
activities and structure to facilitate organizational transition: activity
planning, commitment planning, and change-management structures.

Activity planning

this involves making a road map for change, citing specific activities and
events that must occur if the transition is to be successful. Activity
planning should clearly identify, temporally orient, and integrate discrete
change tasks and should link these tasks to the organization's change
goals and priorities.

Commitment planning

this activity involves identifying key people and groups whose

commitment is needed for change to occur and formulating a strategy for
gaining their support.

Change-Management Structures
because organizational transitions tend to be ambiguous and to need
direction, special structures for managing the change process need to be
created. These management structures should include people who have
the power to mobilize resources to promote change, the respect of the
existing leadership and change advocates, and the interpersonal and
political skills to guide the change process.

The following five activities can help to sustain momentum for carrying
change through to completion: providing resources for change, building a
support system for change agents, developing new competencies and
skills, reinforcing new behaviours, and staying the course.
Change management

The change management process is the sequence of steps or activities that a

change management team or project leader would follow to apply change
management to a project or change. Based on Prosci's research of the most
effective and commonly applied change, most change management processes
contain the following three phases:

Phase 1 - Preparing for change (Preparation, assessment and strategy


Phase 2 - Managing change (Detailed planning and change management


Phase 3 - Reinforcing change (Data gathering, corrective action and


These phases result in the following approach as shown below

Change Management Process

Stages of Process Change
The three stages of effecting process change are reimplementation, implementation and post

Pre-implementation Stage
This stage can be summarized into three parts:

1. Conception of change idea—this stage is where the need for

process change is realized. The need for change may be due to an inadequacy in
the present system; the need to reduce cost; the desire to improve service
delivery, succeed against competition or enhance technology (proactive change);
or the need to comply with governmental or regulatory directives
(reactive/compliance change).

2. Evaluation of the idea—Alternatives are identified and evaluated against

predetermined criteria in this phase. The alternatives’ benefits and costs (inadequacies) are
identified. Except where it is a forced change, the proposed new process must offer higher
net benefits than the existing process.
Management's eventual approval to introduce the
process change At each of the sub stages, especially the points at which
the change idea was evaluated and approved, possible resistance by users and
beneficiaries of the existing processes must be identified. The extent and forms of
the resistance must be diagnosed.

At the reimplementation stage, three main options are available to manage envisaged
resistance to proposed process change:

1. Ignore the resistance and carry on with the

process change program. The decision to ignore the resistance should be
made only if the impacts of the resistance are insignificant and/or the cost of prevention or
putting up with a counter-resistance effort is excessively high when compared with the

2. End the resistance by preventing it. To be able to do this

effectively, the extent and forms of the envisaged resistance to the change process
must be ascertained with as much precision as possible prior to implementation. It
is pertinent to note here that resistance would surface at the reimplementation
stage, especially at the point of evaluating the change idea. Constructive resistance
should be welcomed at all stages, especially prior to the process change’s final
approval. This type of resistance enhances the change’s quality and acceptability
when addressed to the satisfaction of all parties. It is assumed that all forms of
resistance and criticisms at this stage are constructive, as every party to decision
making seeks the best for the organization. This second option is viable only if the
benefits of preventing the resistance are greater than the costs.
1. Implement crisis management. This is a counter-resistance
option, which means the resistance to process change cannot be prevented from
happening, but the effects are so significant that they cannot be ignored. The
counter resistance efforts are to eliminate the negative impacts of the resistance or
reduce them to a level that is tolerable or insignificant. The resistance must be
anticipated prior to the approval stage to enable the implementation of effective
and efficient counter- resistance efforts.

Before the change process begins, management should anticipate possible resistance to the
change programs, when and why the resistance would occur, the source, and impact of the
resistance. This enables management to identify the avoidable and unavoidable resistance and
the affordable and unaffordable resistance. Depending on the outcome of management's
analysis, decisions as to whether the process change is a worthy course can be made.

It is important to remember that effective process change may be hindered by factors other
than human resistance, especially at the point of implementation. For example, the proposed
process might be incompatible with business and procedural realities. If for any reason
management is made to accept and approve a process change and the new system or process
is later found to be incompatible with realities, it would be disastrous for management to fold
its hands and watch the situation helplessly. Management's adoption of a process change that
is totally incompatible with the existing realities is a big blunder, regardless of the
circumstances surrounding the decision. For effective change management, it is necessary to
determine the extent of incompatibility with the reality and the extent to which the new
system can be adopted to achieve the predetermined process change objectives in line with
the overall organizational objectives. It is always advisable that change management experts
who are independent of the organizations and the process change consultants be invited at the
evaluation stage to assess, among other things, the suitability and compatibility of the
proposed process.

Service disruption is another critical problem that requires change management in the event
of process change. In service delivery, turnaround time is one of the important criteria of
measuring service quality. Process change in a service industry could arise from the need to
improve turnaround time and/or minimize delivery costs. The last thing management would
want is service disruption in the system, especially where customers would be directly
affected. Service disruption germinates poor service quality.

Can service disruption be avoided entirely in a process change? Yes, but in most cases it can
only be minimized. For instance, it would be almost impossible to avoid service disruption,
no matter how small, in a bank that is automating its entire processes. In this situation,
change management becomes inevitable.

One change management option would be for staff members and customers who would be
involved in the service delivery and/or who would suffer from the service disruption as a
result of the process change to be carried along before the implementation stage. This would
ensure their cooperation while also preventing or reducing possible resistance from the

Another method to manage service disruption to customers during process change is to

increase the number of service points during the transition. This would ensure that customers
waiting for service are not delayed unnecessarily.
Implementation Stage

This is the stage at which the process change is implemented. It is unlikely that
implementation of the decisions made at the reimplementation stage would be done without
any problems. Proponents of change process, vendors and process change consultants may
not be able to envisage all the likely problems that will be faced during the implementation
stage or may, for whatever reason, not want to disclose them until management has
committed to the exercise.

Many process change projects have been abandoned mid implementation after huge funds
and management time have been committed. It is a pity that some of the organizations with
this kind of regrettable experience have either not recovered fully from the wasted investment
or have ceased to exist. For instance, efforts to automate the operations of various federal and
state governments’ ministries and agencies in Nigeria are far from being realized in spite of
the huge amounts of money and time that have been committed to these tasks over time.
Many of the projects have been abandoned and there is hardly any government ministry in
Nigeria that is fully automated. Another example is the national identity card program
embarked upon by the Nigerian government more than two decades ago. The change was
resisted but the government went ahead with it. However, from all indications the project has
been abandoned and all economic, financial and other resources committed have been

The pre implementation stage is a foundation for the implementation stage. Faulty pre
implementation programs often culminate in serious problems that truncate the process
change at the implementation stage. It is necessary for management to set up a standing
committee to be proactive in identifying problems and resistance during the implementation
and finding solutions immediately. When it cannot prevent problems and resistance, it should
at least find effective solutions. The standing committee should be composed of all
departments affected by the process change and should meet on a regular basis and when the
need arises to discuss problems and solutions.

All stakeholders (internal and external) in the system should be carried along as the
implementation progresses for better understanding and cooperation. They should be
appreciated for their patience and understanding.

Post implementation Stage

The post implementation stage is basically concerned with ensuring that the process change
achieves the predetermined objectives and that post implementation stage problems are
identified and sorted out quickly. One does not expect opposition to the process change to be
as fierce in this stage as it might be at the pre implementation and implementation stages. If
problems do arise, it will most likely be due to:

Lack of or inadequate training to enable users of the

new process to make maximum use of the new process—
most people are reluctant to learn new ways, especially where time and deep
concentration are required. For instance, people who are familiar with a particular
application are more likely to find reasons to condemn the new application.
Management should ensure that all staff members affected by the process change
undertake necessary training at all stages of the process change implementation.
Staff and other stakeholders should also be given the feeling of importance
(because they are) in the successful implementation of the process change.

According to a change formula developed by Richard Beck hard and David Glacier, which is
sometimes referred to as Glacier’s Formula, the combination (product) of organizational
dissatisfaction; vision for the future; and the possibility of immediate, tactical action must be
stronger than the resistance within the organization for meaningful change to occur. Exactly
how effective the formula is has yet to be determined. No organization has come out to
declare the adoption of the formula and attribute the success of the process change to it (the
formula). The ingredients of the model tried to address the past experience, future
expectations and current actions against resistance but one thing is certain: there is no hard-
and-fast rule to implementing change programs. As the changes differ, so do the methods and
approaches, but a combination of determination, careful planning and commitment among all
the stakeholders will always produce good results


Change can be costly, financially and otherwise, but it can also be very
rewarding if it is carefully thought out and implemented. Since a great deal of
financial and human resources are required to effect some process changes,
quality plans are required to ensure that the new process is implemented, clogs
in the wheels are promptly identified and feasible solutions are derived. It is the
responsibility of top management to ensure a successful process change.

To maximize success, management must be well equipped to manage the

environment (employees, customers, suppliers, competitors and other
stakeholders) affected directly or indirectly by the process change.