INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF

PROJECT
MANAGEMENT
International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 337–348
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

A life cycle evaluation of change in an engineering

organization: A case study
a,* b
Amarjit Singh , Max Maher Shoura
a
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Hawaii at Manoa, 2540 Dole Street,
Holmes Hall 383, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822-2382, United States
b
KJM Associates, 2525 E. Camelback Rd., Ste. 1030, Phoenix, Arizona 85016, USA

Received 4 April 2005; received in revised form 14 June 2005; accepted 1 November 2005

Abstract

The change process is explored and a life cycle model of change is analyzed to see how a large public client organization perceives and
reacts to change. Various parameters that occur over the change cycle that relate to initial instability, anxiety, awareness, acceptance of
change, tasking and managing, integration, and implementation are evaluated through a quantitative questionnaire circulated to engineers
of this organization. Among the findings are that whereas general desire for change is high through a high commitment to change, the upper
leadership does not appropriately follow through with the change process, leaving the middle and lower-level engineers to carry a burden
for which they are ill-prepared. The level of communication is insufficient. Statistical tests reveal that general direction and leadership is
lacking even though the middle-level managers are responsive for change and commitment to change is high among all groups. There were
significant differences in the response for parameters evaluated within specific stages of the change life cycle between the various seniority
levels of engineers. Engineers mostly agree that there is no incentive to implement changes; many agree that there is little help available for
transitional services. Many other deficiencies are noted in this large public client organization. Among other, it is recommended for senior
managers to understand that employees are an essential partner. The organizational change (OC) model used provides a workable
approach for analyzing the process of change. This case study helps practicing managers understand their responsibilities in managing
change. The inability to change proactively affects the efficiency and success of public organizations involved in project management.
Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Change; Perception; Managing and leading; Integration – life cycle; Managing programmes; Success and strategy

1. Background in earlier times [2]. Moreover, change is no longer just

The management of change is a fundamental tenet of
organizational development and modern organizational
management. It is necessary to change at the cultural, tech-
nological, and organizational levels for an organization to
remain competitive and efficient in its operations and ser-
vices. Change is too pervasive to ignore.
The modern thinking on change accepts change for its
beneficial effects, rather than rejecting or contradicting it.
Change agents are no longer seen as ‘‘trouble makers’’ as
*
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: singh@eng.hawaii.edu (A. Singh), mshoura@
kjmassoc.com (M.M. Shoura).
the prerogative of senior management, but must be taken
up by all responsible members of the organization. Thus,
organizational leadership, where responsible members are
permitted to take initiative, replaces visionary leadership
of top managers. A sense of freedom is nurtured in contrast
to supervision and the exercise of control. Organizational
designs and objectives remain flexible rather than rigid,
and strong cultures give way to flexible cultures [12].
The methods to initiate change in engineering organiza-
tions are generalized as twofold: (1) TQM, and (2) Re-engi-
neering. TQM, though originally for improving engineering
quality and performance, really amounts to a method for
changing the organization for the better. TQM is a rather
incremental and continuous process when managed

0263-7863/$30.00 Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.11.001
338 A. Singh, M.M. Shoura / International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 337–348
Nomenclature
CE III Civil Engineer Rank III
CE IV Civil Engineer Rank IV
CE V Civil Engineer Rank V
properly. Reengineering, on the other hand, is considered
radical and often just a one-time project till the next discrete
phase. Consequently, incremental change carries lower risk
than radical change because the quantum of change is lesser.
Argyris [3] believed that creative thinking was the foun-
dation of organizational change. That dictum is probably a
permanent necessity in all change. If organizations canÕt
have creative thinking, they canÕt have effective change,
and as the former CEO of General Electric, Jack Welch,
observed, ‘‘If the rate of change on the outside exceeds
the rate of change on the inside, the end is near’’ [11]. This,
then, is how important change management is in modern
organizations, especially large, public ones.
Nalder [9] and Schein [10] emphasized the value of sys-
tematic data collection and analysis in the matter of effect-
ing successful change. This study applies their approach in
collecting data for this study, and subsequently makes rec-
ommendations based on the results obtained.
2. Aims
The aim of this case study is to understand how change
is effected in the State Department of Engineering and
Construction (SDEC) – a large public construction and
contract management organization. This case study was a
funded research that aimed very specifically to study only
SDEC. Through use of statistics, relationship analysis,
and statistical inference, the researchers aim to verify the
significance of observations made for the Ôchange manage-
ment processÕ and subsequently interpret the studyÕs
results. The magnitude of the change that is effected is
aimed to be estimated, whether that magnitude of change
is adequate or not, and whether it is conducted appropri-
ately and effectively. Specifically, this study seeks to under-
stand what is going on inside the organization and to
discover the climate for change, with an aim at recom-
mending appropriate intervention strategies and guidelines
for organizational development, such that better use may
be made of the human resources, specifically engineers.
3. Motivation for the study
The large public agency researched here operates in the
public limelight, consumes large amounts of taxpayer mon-
ies, and its operations and performance are of interest to
the public. The total contract value of projects at this
agency is normally in the vicinity of US$1.5 billion. The
organization has multiple political and social forces pulling
in various directions.
CE VI Civil Engineer Rank VI
[The seniority in rank is as follows: CE VI > CE V >
CE IV > CE III]
At the time of the study, executives were partially com-
mitted to organizational change. For instance, the agency
had plans to buy new computers and connections, revamp
organizational structure, and streamline the procedures
manual. SDEC had exhibited an interest in changing, and
so the study was particularly timely, needed, and relevant.
The study was all the more significant since it involved a
large public organization consuming immense taxpayer
money at a time of budget shortfalls. The study was a very
practical, hands-on approach to managing the entwined
problem of change, and then giving practical recommenda-
tions for implementation.
4. Literature search
In general, change in construction organizations is an
under-researched area. Change models for construction
come from fields of general management and project man-
agement. The change model of Fig. 1, modified from
Adams et al. [2], was applied in this study. This model
was adopted for its ability to track change from inception
to implementation. Various change models exist in manage-
ment science, such as the dual-motor constructive process
model of organizational change that models change along
lines of a dialectic motor that captures forces for promoting
and opposing change. There are numerous theories of orga-
nizations, and the organization of theories often show evi-
dence of diverse and polarized theories [4]. For a practical
study, such as this one, it is meaningful to take one applica-
ble change model and apply it fully. The Organizational
Development network, for instance, lists seven data diagno-
sis models for measuring organizational change [1]:
 Weisbord Six-Box Model.
 Burke–Litwin Model of Organizational Performance
and Change.
 McKinsey 7-S Framework.
 Tichy Strategic Alignment Process.
 Gelinas–James Elements of Organizations Model.
 6 Levers of Organization Change Model.
These models are broad based: for example, the Burke–
Litwin model uses broad management parameters such as
leadership, motivation, and feedback to measure climate
and culture, transformational and transactional forces.
The other models are valid for strategic management or spe-
cifically geared toward personnel management. There are
literally dozens of organizational development (OD) models
in literature spread across management science, construc-
 A. Singh, M.M. Shoura / International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 337–348 339

ject change and ability to track change from inception to

Integration
implementation. The model has been partially altered from
Idea generation
and Execution and its original to suit the details of this study. In the cyclical
Destabilization nature of this model, change is assumed to start with an ini-
SENIOR IV Commitment I tiative that generates ripples of destabilization, identified by
MANAGEMENT to Change
Quadrant I. The change process moves clockwise to Quad-
III II
Acceptance
rant II, where a sense of anxiety appears to manifest among
Anxiety and
and Exploring Awareness employees. Once the anxiety can be overcome with a posi-
Options
tive awareness, employees begin to accept the change pro-
posal. This is followed in Quadrant III by exploring
options and alternatives, planning for task allocation,
and management of the plan. The quadrants in the model
Integration Idea generation
actually reflect the typical management planning process
and Execution and well known to every project management student – that
Destabilization
of planning, organizing, execution, and control. The
IV Commitment I MIDDLE
to Change
MANAGEMENT change process, once identified, is basically a finite project
III II – large or small as the case may be – to be essentially
Acceptance Anxiety and started and effectively completed. Once the managing and
and Exploring Awareness tasking is accomplished in Quadrant III, effective execution
Options
requires that there be integration of the various groups and
forces in the organization, Quadrant IV. The larger the
project, the greater the general need for organizational
integration, because the uncertainties are more, and
Integration
chances are likely to be higher that the process could slip
Idea generation
and Execution and into disorder. Therefore, the need to keep the organization
Destabilization tightly knit together through integrative efforts is higher.
IV Commitment I LOWER
Finally, once the execution nears completion, a proactive
to Change
MANAGEMENT

III management team begins planning for the next steps in

II
Acceptance Anxiety and
and Exploring Awareness
Options
Fig. 1. The change model.
tion management, and management information systems;
these are ethic-based, technology-based, psychology-based,
performance-based, and so on, all of which are too numer-
ous to recount or reference here. In contrast, AdamsÕ model
was found to have particular relevance to project manage-
ment organizations where the precise change phases are
modeled and linked to management hierarchical levels – a
practical approach that was immensely in line with the
needs of the agency sponsoring this research. Moreover,
SDEC followed a generally hierarchical approach to man-
agement, even though contemporary management may
tend towards flat organizational structures and independent
work entities, making the AdamsÕ model more appropriate
for application to SDEC.
5. Organizational change (OC) model
5.1. Model description
The change model, given in Fig. 1, and modified from
Adams et al. [2], was the basis of this study. This model
was adopted for its life-cycle assessment capabilities of pro-
project evolution to ensure that the organization remains
active and alert to be competitive. This resonates with Jack
WelchÕs statement ‘‘The wisdom may lie in changing the
institution while itÕs still winning – reinvigorating a business,
in fact, while itÕs making more money than anyone ever
dreamed it could make’’ [8]. Overall, AdamsÕ model repre-
sents and typifies the complete life cycle of the change man-
agement process in an engineering organization.
5.2. Cyclical phase difference
Often, upper leadership orders the change project to
begin, rather than the change process being ordered from
below. Thus, another aspect of this model is the Ôphase dif-
ferenceÕ between engineers in upper management and engi-
neers at lower management levels. In the hierarchy of this
organization, leadership for change flows from area engi-
neers (CE V and CE VI rank) to resident engineers (CE
IV rank) to project engineers and field engineers (CE III
rank).
The OC model operates on the premise that change man-
agement must first be understood and accepted by senior
management before middle and lower level managers can
become involved. This means that the upper managers
advance to Quadrant III and vicinity by the time they
instruct the organization to examine the change process.
This demonstrates the Ôphase differenceÕ between managers
at different levels. Many employees who now hear of this
order may feel insecure, but this is only natural; however,
340 A. Singh, M.M. Shoura / International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 337–348

they will have to go through Quadrants I and II before they
come to accept the change proposal.
The premise of this model is that upper management
must exhibit a forward thinking vision for the change pro-
cess to be successful. Change management flows through
the management layers, top–down, until the complete cycle
of change has been accomplished.
Fig. 2 shows the various activities, influences, and
change management parameters that appear during the
change process.

5.3. Model quadrants and change management parameters

(CMPÕs)

Each quadrant is characterized by specific variables

called change management parameters (CMPÕs). These
variables measure the performance of the specific quad-
rant. The questions that contribute to each quadrant are
given in Table 1. The questionnaire, itself, is given in
Appendix 1. The CMPÕs of each quadrant are described
in Sections 5.3.1 to 5.3.5 (refer Figs. 1 and 2).

5.3.1. First quadrant

This is the stage of destabilizing forces; it includes the
CMPÕs of Continued employment, Individual & system
adaptabilities, Individual realization, and Resources avail-
Fig. 2. Change parameters and overall scores for each quadrant. ability. Many of these CMPÕs are self explanatory, but a

Table 1
Responses to questions, sorted by group
Question Group scores Combined data CMPÕs where
number CE III (n = 14) CE IV (n = 9) CE V/VI (n = 8) Groups (n = 3) Respondents (n = 31) question
(from is used
Appendix) Avg. r Avg. r Avg. r Avg. r Avg. r (Refer Table 2)
Q 1 5.4 2.02 5.7 1.94 6.3 0.89 5.8 1.62 5.7 1.76 1
Q 2 5.8 1.09 6.0 0.71 5.9 1.13 5.9 0.98 5.9 0.97 2, 3
Q 3 5.6 1.04 5.4 1.42 5.6 1.19 5.6 1.22 5.6 1.17 5, 6
Q 4 4.9 1.14 4.6 1.13 4.3 0.89 4.6 1.05 4.6 1.08 4
Q 5 4.1 2.14 3.6 1.94 2.5 1.41 3.4 1.83 3.5 1.96 2
Q 6 5.8 0.83 5.1 1.17 5.5 1.20 5.5 1.06 5.5 1.04 5
Q 7 3.5 1.81 4.4 0.73 3.0 1.31 3.7 1.28 3.7 1.49 7
Q 8 5.3 1.44 5.4 0.73 5.4 1.06 5.4 1.07 5.4 1.14 5, 8
Q 9 5.1 1.61 5.2 1.39 5.3 1.98 5.2 1.66 5.2 1.60 9
Q 10 4.2 1.28 4.1 0.78 3.5 1.60 3.9 1.22 4.0 1.25 9, 10
Q 11 5.3 0.91 5.0 1.12 5.4 1.06 5.2 1.03 5.2 0.99 9
Q 12 4.7 1.70 4.3 1.22 3.8 1.98 4.3 1.64 4.3 1.65 7
Q 13 4.4 1.45 5.1 0.60 3.4 1.51 4.3 1.18 4.3 1.40 11, 12
Q 14 5.1 1.19 5.2 0.97 4.1 1.55 4.8 1.24 4.9 1.28 2, 12, 13
Q 15 3.6 1.61 4.6 1.24 3.9 1.25 4.0 1.36 4.0 1.43 11
Q 16 3.1 1.55 3.7 1.00 2.1 1.36 3.0 1.30 3.0 1.44 11
Q 17 3.6 1.76 3.4 1.88 3.5 1.07 3.5 1.57 3.5 1.59 12
Q 18 3.5 1.33 4.2 1.39 2.4 1.30 3.4 1.34 3.4 1.48 14
Q 19 3.9 1.55 4.2 1.48 3.1 1.96 3.8 1.66 3.8 1.65 20
Q 21 5.6 1.45 5.8 0.97 5.5 0.93 5.6 1.11 5.6 1.17 8, 10
Q 22 5.4 0.96 5.6 0.73 5.4 1.06 5.4 0.92 5.4 0.90 10, 13
Q 23 4.3 1.89 4.2 1.39 4.4 2.45 4.3 1.91 4.3 1.86 13
Q 24 3.9 1.64 4.7 1.22 3.3 1.58 3.9 1.48 4.0 1.56 14
Q 25 3.5 1.39 4.4 1.51 2.9 1.73 3.6 1.54 3.6 1.59 14
Q 26 4.8 1.83 5.4 0.88 4.4 2.39 4.9 1.70 4.9 1.78 14, 15
Q 27 3.5 1.27 4.6 1.01 3.1 1.73 3.7 1.34 3.7 1.41 14, 15
Q 28 3.8 1.63 5.3 0.87 4.1 1.96 4.4 1.48 4.4 1.63 13, 14, 19
Q 29 4.6 1.22 5.7 0.71 3.9 2.03 4.7 1.32 4.7 1.48 16, 17
Q 30 6.1 0.83 5.8 0.67 5.3 1.91 5.7 1.13 5.8 1.18 16, 18
Q 31 4.0 1.15 3.9 1.17 3.1 1.96 3.7 1.43 3.7 1.41 19, 20
Averages 4.5 1.42 4.8 1.13 4.1 1.51 4.5 1.36 4.5 1.41
Correlations between CE III and CE IV = 0.72; CE III and CE V/VI = 0.88; CE IV and CE V/VI = 0.82.
 A. Singh, M.M. Shoura / International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 337–348
brief definition is provided below (cross-refer questions in
the Questionnaire distributed, Appendix 1):
 Continued employment: Uses Question 2. It is a mea-
sure of the employee comfort level and how each
employee feels he/she fits in a dynamic and changing
organization.
 Individual adaptability: Uses Questions 3, 6, and 8. It
assesses how the employees adapt and accept added
duties and how they deal with new authority and change.
 System (Group) adaptability: Uses Question 4. It
assesses the perception of how the group, as a whole,
adapts to change.
 Individual awareness: Uses Question 1. It is a measure
of individual awareness of managementÕs decisions and
new organizational directions.
 Resources availability: Uses Questions 9, 10, 11, 21, and
22. It measures the organizationÕs desire to change, the
pursuit of change, and the availability of resources that
must be dedicated to the change process.
5.3.2. Second quadrant
This is where anxiety and awareness develop; the CMPÕs
here are Organizational support, Anxiety management,
Employee empowerment, and Managing increased respon-
sibilities. These CMPÕs are defined as:
 Organizational support: Uses Questions 13, 15, and 16.
It assesses the organizationÕs support to employees to
fulfill tasks and transfer within or outside the
organization.
 Anxiety management: Uses Questions 2, 5, and 14. It
measures the individualsÕ awareness of on-going
changes, anxiety levels, and any positive attitude of
how change is embraced.
 Employee empowerment: Uses Questions 7 and 12. It
measures employeesÕ empowerment and their ability to
use it.
 Managing increased responsibilities: Uses Question 3. It
measures the individualsÕ receptiveness to increased
responsibility.
5.3.3. Third quadrant
This is the stage of acceptance and managing tasks; The
CMPÕs are Acceptance of change, Receptiveness to change,
Perception of change/change management, and Inhibition
control. These CMPÕs are defined as:
 Acceptance of change: Uses Question 8. It measures
adaptability to and acceptance of change.
 Receptiveness to change: Uses Questions 10, 21, and 22.
It measures the employeeÕs direct receptiveness.
 Perception of change: Uses Questions 28 and 31. It mea-
sures the employeesÕ satisfaction with the implementa-
tion of change.
341
 Perception of change management: Uses Questions 19
and 31. It measures the employeesÕ satisfaction with
the leadership managing the changes.
 Inhibition control: Uses Questions 14, 22, 23, and 28. It
measures the positive versus negative factors.
5.3.4. Fourth quadrant
This is the integration, execution, and restart stage; it
includes the following CMPÕs: Synergy for change, Enthu-
siasm for change, Commitment to change, and System sta-
bilization. These CMPÕs are defined as:
 Synergy in change: Uses Questions 18, 24, 25, 26, 27,
and 28. It measures the factors that form the synergy
between the individual and the organization effort dur-
ing change implementation.
 Enthusiasm in change: Uses Questions 26 and 27. It
assesses how change excites or should excite employees.
 Commitment to change: Uses Questions 29 and 30. It
represents the commitment level and passion for change
among groups, leadership, and the individuals.
 System stabilization: Uses Questions 13, 14, and 17. It
measures the factors that lead to stable organization.
5.3.5. Loop center
A central feature of the OC model is the specific change
concept of commitment to change, which is shown in the
center of the circle. This serves as a major part of the con-
cept of the model. It should be noted here that a true com-
mitment to change is an element that is essential to the
process of change while traversing all four quadrants. In
consideration of the concept of Ôcommitment to changeÕ
in the Loop Center, one often reflects on three elements
that represent past learning, present position, and future
plans.
 OneÕs own basic belief that change is necessary.
 OneÕs desire to change, and
 OneÕs pledge to actively participate in the change
process.
In reality, the change parameters do not occur in a neat
step-by-step fashion, rather they merge into each other
over the quadrants, the parameters, and layers of percep-
tion, motivated by the commitment to change. Thus, the
Loop Center is common to all quadrants, and a basic force
through the entire change process. This helps to under-
stand the primary engine of the model.
6. Approach to change
The management and psychological variables laid out in
the questionnaire set the trend for the approach to the
study. The model revolves around the belief that factors
such as personal impressions, adaptation, support struc-
342 A. Singh, M.M. Shoura / International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 337–348
ture, personality (receptivity and selectivity), reaction to
authority, expectations of leadership, organizational incen-
tives, desire and orientation to change, and related factors
are fundamental to initiating change and managing it.
However, these factors were found particularly relevant
to SDEC after initial interviews with the engineers. But,
each organization is unique and individualistic, having spe-
cial characteristics; therefore, such factors and question-
naires will have to be carefully developed for each
organization. The authors do not believe that there is one
change formula that fits all, or one technique can be
applied to all organizations, or one size fits all. Change is
a very behavioral phenomenon, and individuals composing
organizations have different value systems and beliefs even
within the same town, let alone around the world.
7. Research methodology and response
The Methodology was to use a survey instrument dis-
tributed to all engineers of SDEC. The survey was specially
designed to match the change model of Adams et al. Spe-
cific change management parameters (CMPÕs) were quanti-
tatively assessed in the instrument for each phase of the
change projectÕs life cycle. Since the entire population
was covered, the results were amenable to statistical analy-
sis. Subsequently, Anova, ScheffeÕs test, correlation analy-
sis, and deviation analysis were all performed on the data
and inferences on relationships and significance were
drawn. Various observations were noted and conclusions
made. Finally, a set of recommendations was developed
to match the specific conclusions.
8. Survey response
A questionnaire of 31 questions covering 20 CMPÕs was
confidentially circulated to all ranks of engineers of this pub-
lic agency. Thus, the entire population was covered. The
responses help to ascertain the engineersÕ standing in the
various quadrants of the model and the CMPÕs. In addition,
seven qualitative field surveys were conducted that helped
the investigators get a close feel of the happenings, frustra-
tions, and management performance in the agency.
Thirty-one responses were received to the quantitative
survey, broken down by groups, as follows:
 14 replies from CE III level engineers working in field
offices;
 9 replies from CE IV engineers who supervise work at
field office; and
 8 replies from CE V and VI engineer-managers who
coordinate work in this agency.
The responses represented a 75% return rate, since there
are 42 engineers in this organization. The responses were
considered valid, since they covered the entire population.
The responses followed central tendencies, evidenced by
values clustering around their means, and by a narrow
range of standard deviations in the scores [these are both
standard demonstrations for normality in statistical analy-
sis]. This validated normal statistical tests to be undertaken
on the response data.
9. Measurements made
Raw scores for each question are given in Table 1. The
following scores are collected on the basis of the AdamsÕ
model:
1. CMP score – these are collected for each parameter for
the three groups.
2. Quadrant score, QS – these are collected for each group,
as well as for the overall respondents.
3. Overall score, OS – this is collected for each quadrant
for all CMPÕs and all groups.
Statistical tests are subsequently undertaken for these
scores. The aim now is to (1) discover how smoothly
change flows across the quadrants, characterized by the
life-cycle of the change process, and (2) discover whether
there are any breaks or discord in the flow of change over
itÕs life-cycle, spanning the various stages and different
ranks of engineers.
10. Statistical tests and interpretation
10.1. Inferences from significance analysis (ANOVA)
To test whether there are any statistically significant dif-
ferences in the scores obtained between different quadrants,
CMPÕs, and groups, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was
performed on the data; the results were as follows:
 There is statistical significance in the differences shown
to exist in one-way ANOVA in the following cases:
– There were differences for how each group rated on
the CMPÕs in each quadrant.
– There were differences in how each group compared
overall to each other for their CMP responses, irre-
spective of quadrants.
– The values for all CMPÕs in each quadrant were sig-
nificantly different to each other.
 However, there is no apparent significant difference for
the total scores of groups among the quadrants.
This ANOVA exercise allows us to make valid interpre-
tations of the observed differences as will be shown in the
sections to follow.
10.2. Inferences from ScheffeÕs test
Subsequent analyses using ScheffeÕs Test fail to show
any further significance for differences between groups in
quadrants. ScheffeÕs Test is a conservative statistical test
 A. Singh, M.M. Shoura / International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 337–348 343

commonly used for multiple comparisons between a lim- 0.9

ited number of compounded groups, such as for groups 0.8
between the quadrants [7]. An additional benefit for these 0.7
tests is to find out if there was any leading group, but there 0.6

Scores
was no such interpretation apparent. 0.5
0.4 CE V/VI
0.3 CE IV
10.3. Correlation analysis
0.2 CE III
0.1
The correlation in overall group scores over the four
0
quadrants between the CE III engineers and CE IV is I II III IV
0.87, between CE III and CE V/VI is 0.97, and between Quadrants
CE IV and CE V/VI is 0.72 (data of Figs. 3 and 4) (see Fig. 4. Quadrant scores for each group.
Nomenclature for explanation of engineer ranks).
The correlation between the questions asked is 0.72
between CE III and CE IV; 0.88 between CE III and CE Interpretation: Whereas, all these correlation analyses
V/VI; and 0.80 between CE IV and CE V/VI (Table 1). appear high, there is really no significance at 95% confi-
The correlation between the groups for their responses dence for any of them, except for the one in the group
to CMPÕs is 0.84 between CE III and CE IV, 0.93 between quadrant scores between the CE IIIÕs and CE V/VIÕs.
CE III and CE V/VI, and 0.79 between CE IV and CE V/ This is perhaps an indication that the various levels of
VI. Results are given in Table 2. engineers operate independently, are not in sync, or have
different agendas and missions. In fact, from our interviews
of engineers, it was quite clear that each group marches to
its own drummer, and that there is no discernible, unified
organizational culture.
QS = 0.57 QS = 0.77 The one significant correlation between the CE V/VI
SENIOR
and CE IIIÕs probably indicates that there is an equal dis-
MANAGEMENT,
IV interest and lack of enthusiasm in their approach and out-
CE V/VI Loop I
Center look. The scores of the CE IVÕs are discernibly higher than
III II other levels, and so there was no common correlation in
their scores.
QS = 0.61 QS = 0.62
10.4. Deviation analysis

The average score by CE IVÕs on all questions was high-

est at 4.8, followed by CE IIIÕs at 4.5, and then by CE V/
QS = 0.74
VIÕs at 4.1. The average deviation was highest among CE
QS = 0.72
V/VIÕs at 1.51, followed by CE IIIÕs at 1.42, and by CE
MIDDLE
MANAGEMENT, IVÕs at 1.13.
IV Loop I CE IV
Center
Interpretation: Basically, this reveals that the CE IVÕs are
III II the most inspired group of the department (highest score),
and have focused objectives (narrow deviation). In stark
QS = 0.70 QS = 0.70 contrast, the upper leadership has not only the lowest
scores of all groups, but also the widest dispersion of views
and approaches. This confirms our general finding that the
CE V/VIÕs are not imparting focused messages to their
organization, that it is they who are pulling in different
directions, and that it is through them that inefficiency is
QS = 0.655 QS = 0.76 likely pervading the organization.
LOWER
IV Loop I MANAGEMENT, 11. Characteristics
CE III
Center
III II 11.1. Upper leadershipÕs scores
QS = 0.652 QS = 0.655
To ensure effective direction and purpose to the change
process, the score of upper leadership, CE V/VI, should
not be significantly less than the scores of lower groups.
Fig. 3. Quadrant scores for each management level. Their high scores are necessary if there is to be appropriate
344 A. Singh, M.M. Shoura / International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 337–348

Table 2
Values of change management parameters
Change mgmt parameters CE III group CE IV group CE V/VI group Combined groups
AVG r AVG r AVG r AVG r
1 Individual realization 0.81 0.24 0.81 0.28 0.89 0.13 0.84 0.21
2 Anxiety management 0.70 0.16 0.75 0.07 0.74 0.13 0.73 0.12
3 Continued employment 0.82 0.16 0.86 0.10 0.84 0.16 0.84 0.14
4 System adaptability 0.70 0.17 0.65 0.16 0.61 0.13 0.65 0.15
5 Individual adaptability 0.79 0.14 0.76 0.13 0.79 0.13 0.78 0.13
6 Managing incr. responsibility 0.80 0.15 0.78 0.20 0.80 0.17 0.79 0.17
7 Employee empowerment 0.59 0.21 0.63 0.07 0.48 0.23 0.57 0.17
8 Acceptance of change 0.77 0.17 0.80 0.10 0.78 0.10 0.78 0.12
9 Resources availability 0.68 0.11 0.68 0.10 0.67 0.13 0.68 0.11
10 Receptiveness to change 0.72 0.10 0.74 0.08 0.68 0.12 0.71 0.10
11 Organizational support 0.53 0.19 0.63 0.10 0.45 0.15 0.54 0.15
12 System stabilization 0.62 0.17 0.66 0.13 0.52 0.12 0.60 0.14
13 Inhibition control 0.64 0.11 0.71 0.07 0.62 0.11 0.66 0.10
14 Synergy in change 0.55 0.15 0.68 0.11 0.48 0.18 0.57 0.14
15 Enthusiasm in change 0.59 0.16 0.71 0.11 0.54 0.21 0.61 0.16
16 Commitment by group 0.76 0.11 0.82 0.09 0.65 0.25 0.74 0.15
17 Commitment by orgl. lÕship 0.67 0.18 0.81 0.10 0.55 0.29 0.68 0.19
18 Commitment by individual 0.86 0.12 0.83 0.10 0.75 0.27 0.81 0.16
19 Perception of change 0.56 0.14 0.66 0.11 0.52 0.26 0.58 0.17
20 Perception of change mgmt. 0.57 0.16 0.58 0.19 0.45 0.28 0.53 0.21
Parameter average score and standard deviation (r) 0.69 0.15 0.73 0.12 0.64 0.18 0.69 0.15
Correlations between groups
CE III & CE IV CE III & CE V/VI CE IV & CE V/VI
0.84 0.93 0.79

motivation and respect for leadership, and if there is to be
enough of a thrust for the order to survive at lower levels
and later phases of the project. However, even though the
first quadrant score of CE V/VI is the highest, there is not
a significant difference between their scores and those of
CE IVÕs and IIIÕs. In fact, their fourth quadrant score
of 0.57 is the lowest of all group quadrant scores. From
Fig. 2, it is seen that the combined group scores of Quad-
rants I, II, III, and IV were 0.76, 0.66, 0.654, and 0.65,
respectively. Overall group scores, OS, were 64%, 71%,
and 68% for CE V/VI, CE IV, and CE III, respectively.
The group score of CE V/VI is significantly the lowest
(64%) among all groups. This finding shows that the CE
V/VI group is not demonstrating adequate leadership, in
relation to the middle and lower groups.
11.2. Quadrant scores among different groups
It is observed that CE V/VI scores show systematically
decreasing scores in the loop of quadrants I through IV
(Figs. 3 and 4). To a lesser degree, the other two groups
showed decreasing loop scores but were less pronounced.
The biggest drop in any one quadrantÕs score from its pre-
ceding quadrant in the loop was in Q.II, awareness/anxiety,
for CE V/VIÕs. The highest overall quadrant score was
recorded by the CE V/VIÕs Quadrant I, destabilizing forces
– implying that higher management is appropriately
accepting the need for change. The lowest overall quadrant
score was recorded by integration, Q.IV, of CE V/VIÕs –
implying that upper leadership is slow in moving on to
the next phase of change. As a central category to this
model, Commitment to Change earned high scores from
all groups (0.75, 0.83, & 0.86 for CE III, CE IV, and CE
V/VI, respectively).
The CE V/VI group seems to provide the initial leader-
ship for change management. However, the one concern is
that scores are not systematically high for the CE V/VIÕs.
This group, therefore, has not fully ‘‘bought in’’ to the
change process, and hence does not manifest a leadership
that is as decisive as one may expect. From SchefféÕs Test,
we find that the senior managers are not more motivated
than the lower level engineers.
All groups are highly committed to change, a very posi-
tive aspect in their attitude toward change. Additionally,
the lower groups seem to reflect a higher degree of commit-
ment; this is also viewed positively since they are the ones
who have to implement the real changes.
11.3. Observations on CMPÕs of combined groups
The highest and lowest scores recorded by the combined
groups on change management parameters were as given
below (refer Table 2):
 A. Singh, M.M. Shoura / International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 337–348 345

Highest scores Lowest scores achieving its stated goals for change. The lack of consis-
tency in leadership must be rectified by alleviating the dif-
Continued 0.84 Perception of change 0.53
ficulties this group faces, enhancing the authority available
employment management
to this group, clearing some perceived bottlenecks for
Individual 0.84 Organizational support 0.54
them, and delegating more authority to lower groups.
realization
Commitment 0.81 Employee empowerment 0.57
12. Flow of change
to change
Synergy in change 0.57
Whereas the CE IVÕs and IIIÕs start their Quadrant I at
quadrant scores of 0.74 and 0.76, respectively, the CE V/
It seems that engineers are ideally aware of the need for VIÕs are down by that time in Quadrant III with a score
change and are committed to the process. Since this is a of 0.61. It seems reasonable to conclude that the Quadrant
public organization, they are relatively secure in their I score of the middle and lower level engineers is virtually
employment. However, the organizational support for as high as that of the upper managers, solely because of
managing change, the attitudes and perceptions relating the relatively higher enthusiasm, commitment, and percep-
to change, the motivation of the employees, and teamwork tion of change that the middle and lower groups posses.
for change management are all seriously wanting. These In general, there is a decline in activity over the life cycle,
low scores reflect a climate of uncertainty and distrust. This as evident from Fig. 4. The organization is unable to sus-
finding was backed up by the qualitative surveys. tain its momentum for reasons that can be attributed to
The enthusiasm score is at 0.61, a low level. Whereas we unsatisfactory communication and substantial distrust of
would expect upper leadership to be enthusiastic of change, upper leadership. There should have been more or equal
we find that the middle level engineers are actually most synergy downstream among the group, instead we are see-
enthusiastic. One reason for this behavior may be that ing widening gap (decrease) in views going into Quadrant
the CE IVÕs are so fed up with the state of affairs, as well IV from Quadrant I.
as mature enough to understand the needs involved in
modern organizations, that they are enthusiastic about 13. Major observations
introducing changes that will expectedly change their lot.
Engineers felt fairly confident of their own capabilities, The CE IIIÕs, who did not have the highest scores in
but did not expect much from the system at all. Thus, quadrants, exhibited the highest score for Commitment to
scores on individual adaptability and managing for change. Given their low salaries, poor work conditions,
increased responsibilities are high, while scores on system and general distrust of upper leadership, it stands to reason
adaptability are low. to understand that they are definitely committed to change.
What is missing, however, is the connection between their
11.4. Group responses to individual questions version of change and those of their seniors.
The CE IVÕs illustrated their highest score for Continued
In reviewing group results, the highest and lowest employment, which implies that the job security of their
recorded scores were as follows (refer Table 2): organization is important to them. Given that they are in
the middle of the organizationÕs activities and conflict rid-
Highest group scores Lowest group scores
den environment, they can at least rest content in that no
0.89, CE V/VI, 0.45, CE V/VI, perception of one can take their job away without cause.
individual realization change mgmt Finally, the highest score (89%), anywhere in this study,
0.86. CE III, 0.45, CE V/VI, organizational was obtained for Individual Realization by CE V/VIÕs, sig-
commitment to change support nifying that they are truly cognizant of the problems beset-
0.84. CE V/VI, 0.48, CE V/VI, employee ting the organization (many of which have been created by
continued employment empowerment; them). In addition, since they are the ones to really initiate
0.83, CE IV, 0.48, CE V/VI, synergy in change, it stands to reason to expect them to understand
commitment to change change. the nature of changes being undertaken, a realization that
is obviously not shared by the other groups.
These scores complement those for combined groups, as However, most CMPÕs show consistently low perfor-
should be logical. However, the alarming discovery is that mances – such as empowerment, organizational support, syn-
the lowest scores all belong to the CE V/VI – the senior ergy in change, enthusiasm in change, perception of change,
managers and the leadership in this organization. Whereas, and perception of change management (refer Table 2).
the upper leadership has some high scores, as well, their The CE IVÕs and IIIÕs exhibited highest scores on 17 out
low scores completely give away the fact that they are of the 20 CMPÕs. The CE IVÕs recorded 15 highs by them-
polarized in their own approach and attitude to change, selves, with one tie with the CE IIIÕs; the CE IIIÕs had five
which obviously causes ripples downstream at lower man- highs, with three ties with the other groups. The CE V/VIÕs
agement levels, and prevents the organization from fully had only one exclusive high – that for individual realization.
346 A. Singh, M.M. Shoura / International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 337–348
Again, this is evidence that the CE V/VIÕs lack the spirit of
their subordinates, which is not healthy when it is uni-
formly so.
The morale of this organization is very low, as under-
stood through qualitative surveys. Public complaints are
unusually frequent, and public dissatisfaction runs high.
Of additional significance is that the engineers in this
organization generally accept change, are committed, and
are able to manage increased responsibility. This reveals
a pattern when contrasted against an unsatisfactory per-
ception of change and change management, low synergy
in change, low organizational support, and a less than high
enthusiasm for change, as exhibited. It becomes apparent
that the individuals are ready and willing, but the organiza-
tional direction is weak. ItÕs much like having keen soldiers
under poor generalship.
14. Discussion
A case study as this provides pointers to the issues pres-
ent in an organization, and is able to direct managers to
making relevant interventions. The organization, it
appears, wants change en masse, but is unable to identify
the how and what of it. There is no collective and mutual
agreement or understanding. Given that job security is
granted, there doesnÕt appear to be much enthusiasm for
coming to agreement, though the CE IVÕs did exhibit
enthusiasm for change. Teamwork is at low ebb, with
low synergy and collaboration in efforts. This public orga-
nization carries on its day to day work at low energy levels,
just enough to survive. Actual changes undertaken are low
– and discontent and dissatisfaction were found to be high
during the interviews.
In many ways, this is the typical model of a dysfunc-
tional public organization, out of touch with reality, and
unable to do anything by themselves within the organiza-
tion. While the individuals exhibit personal skills, talent,
and knowledge of their technical matter, they lack the drive
to bring improvements, enhancements, and changes. Most
importantly, they lack the will to work together.
Essentially, a concept of fear was discovered to pervade
the organization. Engineers were afraid to speak out or
assert themselves, and complained of working with ‘‘one
hand tied behind their backs.’’ Decision-making freedoms
are curtailed, and there are few incentives for managers
to recommend and implement improvement.
15. Summary
The purpose of this study was to obtain a representative
sampling and analysis of the approach to change among
engineers in a large public organization. A variation of
the model of Adams et al. was used to quantitatively
measure change issues. The aim was to recommend an
appropriate intervention based on measurement of the
on-going change process: its magnitude, adequacy, appro-
priateness, and effectiveness over the entire life-cycle – a
cycle that starts with idea generation, destabilization,
awareness and acceptance, moves on to exploring options,
managing, tasking, integration, and execution, and finally
closing with a start for the next step of change.
Three groups of engineers at different hierarchical levels
– from top to bottom – were surveyed. Surveys were sent
out to all engineers in this engineering organization. 75%
of the engineers responded. Statistical analysis was under-
taken on the responses for significance testing and relation-
ship analysis to fulfill the aims of this study. Various
discoveries were made on the behavior and approach of
the engineer groups, as well as for the individual engineers.
Quantitative scores were confirmed with qualitative
surveys, where the research team personally interviewed
each engineer. The study finished with recommendations
for this organization to handle change in a more suitable
manner.
16. Conclusions
Using inferences from statistical testing, ANOVA and
Scheffe tests confirmed that there was no significant rela-
tionship between how the groups responded to the change
management parameters, and that there was no relation-
ship between the group scores over the quadrants and life
cycle for the CMP values. Moreover, there is no statistical
difference between the overall scores in each quadrant for
the groups. Generally, there is no correlation between the
scores of groups over the life cycle, except for one incident
out of six, where CE V/VI and CE III have a correlation
for the score patterns over the life cycle.
This directly indicates that this organization has no
cohesive approach or culture for change, otherwise the
scores would have been significantly related and correlated.
Thus, individuals and groups pull in various directions,
which implies that they further fragment the organization
(that is already functioning poorly).
Whereas, the data showed that all engineers are gener-
ally committed to change to a high degree, they are unable
to come to terms with each other on how the change should
be effected. This was manifest by their varying perceptions
of the problem.
The upper leadership provides a strong initial impetus
for change, demonstrated by high initial scores, but fails
to follow through in an optimal manner, finishing with a
whimper instead of a bang. The variation in the scores of
upper leadership over the life cycle is the highest of all
groups, indicating that upper leadership loses steam as
the change project progresses. Individual and overall scores
illustrated that the leadership is ineffective.
The fact that there is no statistical difference in the over-
all score of groups over the life cycle indicates that no one
group is really able to do more than any other to accom-
plish the aims of change. As a consequence, no group is
able to break out of the rut of organizational policies
and procedures that curb innovation. In addition, there is
no leading group. Even though the senior managers are
 A. Singh, M.M. Shoura / International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 337–348 347

tasked with providing the necessary leadership, they were
not exercising leadership.
Interestingly, the middle level managers had the highest
scores over the life cycle. It is anticipated they wish to see
change take place effectively and soon, since the middle
level managers have a lot to lose over the remaining por-
tion of their career if changes donÕt take place soon enough
for them. Hence, they want to see that change before they
get old on the job.
The conclusions appeared to match other significant
aspects of this organization reported through interviews
and qualitative analysis, where morale was found to be
very low. It can be concluded that low morale and deficient
change management approaches feed into each other, pre-
venting this organization from emerging out of its dismal
situation.
It was concluded that rather than there being some effi-
ciency, production, or procedural matters that occluded the
engineers from performing well that were the cause of pub-
lic complaints, the real reason for the poor performance
and public complaints is an impoverished organizational
culture with an ineffective communication system, where
the leaders lack understanding of modern systems of man-
agement and are thus unable to convey the desired change
strategies or vision to the engineers (This was in spite of a
couple of the leaders having received prestigious awards
such as the ‘‘best engineer of the year’’ awarded by the
State Society of Professional Engineers.).
The case study, through a formal quantitative question-
naire and formal qualitative surveys, enabled the research
team to identify pertinent problems in the organization,
such that appropriate managerial recommendations could
be made, thereby fulfilling the aims of the study.
17. Recommendations
The dynamics of management in this public organiza-
tion are discovered to have neither a modern orientation,
nor to operate in sync to each other. Consequently, many
of the drawbacks and deficiencies of this organization can
be traced to lack of management understanding among
the engineers managing the organization. The general
awareness of management processes, management
approaches, management styles, or morale management
and motivation are all missing.
Leadership here can take multiple initiatives for multiple
organizational changes. It appears that the list for actions is
potentially long, but the most applicable specific remedies
from the vast list of remedies available in management sci-
ence are mentioned here that can directly influence change
management at SDEC. These remedies follow from the diag-
nosis of the situation at SDEC, the reports made available to
the research team by individuals during qualitative analysis,
and results from the quantitative survey. The link between
the results and remedies is presented in Table 3. These fol-
low, generally, from classical and conventional management
intervention strategies. A discovered deficiency, such as poor
communication, for instance, is remedied by addressing the
communication systems, organizational culture, and inter-
action between supervisors and subordinates. The following
remedies are, therefore, recommended, to help this organiza-
tion become healthy and take its place among advanced,
contemporary organizations.
 Improve communication exchange on all change issues.
Discuss the organizational change proposals with lower
level engineers; get them on board well before the change
is implemented. Reduce the Ôphase differenceÕ as much as
possible.
 Communicate all changes to all employees through
memos, newsletters, bulletin boards, meetings, discus-
sions, and brainstorming sessions.
 Seek Ôbuy-inÕ by all employees for the change proposals;
seek input from everyone, seek views of engineers during
change, and embrace new ideas and concepts.
 Grant incentives to engineers for implementing changes.
 Provide support to engineers during the change process.
DonÕt leave them on a limb! Fulfill their resource, com-
munication, and information requirements.
 Rather than be glum and content with the high job secu-
rity that creates an environment without adequate moti-
vation, create a participative management environment.
 Encourage employees to be partners in change initiatives
and change processes.
 Seek to fulfill the aspirations of employees rather than
seeking to ÔcontrolÕ them.

Table 3
Causal relations between findings and remedies
Observations/findings
Low perception of change management
No cohesive approach for change across
engineering management layers
Low employee empowerment
No leading group, and low synergy in change
Low morale, enthusiasm and average
receptiveness and acceptance
Low organization support
Recommendations/remedies
Improve exchange on all change issues by communicating changes to employees using various means
Seek Ôbuy-inÕ by all employees for the change proposals. Provide a feeling of partnership in change
management between employees and upper management
Foster a participative management environment, get input from all, seek views of engineers, and
embrace new ideas and concepts
Emphasize the leadership role in advancing the process and guiding others
Encourage senior management to use Expert power and Theory Y
Place incentives for engineers to implement proposed changes
Create a participative management environment
Encourage engineers to experiment with creating Ôa change a dayÕ
Provide support for engineers during change
348 A. Singh, M.M. Shoura / International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 337–348
 Coach senior managers in using expertise power and
Theory Y leadership systems.
 Realize that Ôa change a dayÕ is need in this organization,
so plans for change have to be pursued with some high
degree of vigor.
Some experimentation may no doubt be necessary, but
unless a positive start is made in a big way, rather than
in a piecemeal way, this organization will be unable to
experience the benefits of managerial change and organiza-
tional development, resulting in inoptimal use of taxpayer
monies.
Appendix 1. Questionnaire on organizational change
All references to ÔorganizationÕ denote your Depart-
ment. Answers require you to respond on a seven-point
scale that represents intensity of belief and opinion.
Please be candid in your responses and exercise your con-
science. Please mark your numerical responses according
to the scale below, ranging from 1 (positively no) to 7
(positively yes).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Positively no Positively yes
Questions:
1. Are you aware that your organization is going
through an organizational change process?
2. Do you think that you will fit into a new form (a
change) of organization?
3. Do you think you can perform new additional duties
in an efficient manner after changes occur?
4. Do you think you and other employees are easily
adaptable to change in organization?
5. Do you have any job anxiety due to upcoming changes?
6. How comfortably can you deal with new authority
and possible changes in management style?
7. If a change (procedure/administrative policies) is
required, are you empowered to suggest, formulate
and implement changes?
8. When a change is happening, do you adapt and
accept it easily?
9. If a change is needed or required, do you request the
resources to implement it?
10. How receptive are your superiors to your ideas of
change?
11. How receptive are you to othersÕ (superiors and sub-
ordinates) ideas of change?
12. Can you get selective in implementing your own
method to complete/achieve the sought change?
13. If a change occurs at your agency, do you expect the
organization to support you dealing with changes?
14. Do you expect changes to affect your employment in
a positive way?
15. If you have to transfer from your position/function,
do you get support from the organization?
16. If you have to leave your job due to changes here, is
there help in this organization for transitioning to a
new position outside?
17. Are you assured that, if changes take place, you
would have a safe transition to a new position?
18. Does the organization place incentives to implement
changes?
19. Do you think changes have been managed correctly
by your agencyÕs leadership?
20. Do you have suggestions for better ways to manage
changes to come?
List some below:
____________________________________________
____________________________________________
21. Do you think changes are necessary?
22. Is it easy for you to get along with new organizational
changes?
23. Do you think there are any local or cultural blocks
against implementing changes?
24. Are the efforts of management and employees com-
bined to achieve a desired change?
25. Does the organization seek the help of employees to
initiate change?
26. In your opinion, should the process of change create
excitement in an organization?
27. Does the process of change create excitement in your
organization?
28. Does the process of change excite you personally?
29. Do you feel the organization is committed to making
changes for the better?
31. Are you committed to a continued progress and to
making changes for the better?
31. Do you feel satisfied with the speed of this organiza-
tion at implementing changes?
References
[1] Action Research Tools, Organizational Development Network, 2004,
Available from: http://www.odnet.org/toolkit/alltools.php.
[2] Adams JR, Bilbro CR, Stockert TC. An organizational development
approach to project management. Project Management Institute; 1986.
[3] Argyris C. Organization and innovation. Illinois: Homewood; 1965.
[4] Collins D. New paradigms for change? Theories of organization and
the organization of theories. J Org Change Mgmt 1996;9(4):9–23.
[7] Keppel G. Design and analysis: a researcherÕs handbook. Englewood
Cliffs (NJ): Prentice-Hall; 2004.
[8] Lowe J. Jack Welch speaks. New York: Wiley; 1998.
[9] Nadler David A. Feedback and organizational development: using
data based methods. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley Publishing
Company, Inc.; 1977.
[10] Schein EH. Process consultation: its role in organizational develop-
ment. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley; 1969.
[11] Slater R. Jack Welch and the GE Way: management insights and
leadership secrets of the legendary CEO. New York: McGraw Hill;
1999.
[12] Stacey RD. Managing the unknowable: strategic boundaries between
order and chaos in organizations. San Francisco: Josey-Bass; 1992.