University: de Salle

ffi De La Salle university
APPROVAL SHEET
This research paper hereto entitled:
EstablishinglnternalReviewtolmprovetheQualityofoutputs
,na io prom6te Blame-Free Norms in a shared service company
preparedandsubmittedby@-.inpartialfulfil|mentoftherequirements
forthedegreeotruasierihffiionhasbeenexaminedandis
for oRAL EX1!4lN
,"."rtr"ioto ioi-r.""ptunce and approval
iienito r"6enanlee
Adviser
a grade of PASSED on November 28' 2019'

Approved by the committee on oral Examination with
M*
Chair
'tine Bernardo
Member
degree of
Accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
Master in Business Administration'
A{o,*t U
Dr. Emilina R. Sarreal
,"rn \.?4t1
Management and Organization Department Ramon V. del Rosario College of Business

De La Salle University
Ramon V. Del Rosario College of Business
Management and Organization Department
Endorsement Form - Insider Action Research

(IAR) Defense
Establishing Internal Review to Improve the Quality of Outputs in a

Shared Service Company
Submitted by:
Alyssa Mae Acielo
On October 18, 2019 du ring the 1st trimester of AY2019-2020
Has been examined and approved

for presentation to the IAR defense panel.
Signatu re over printed name I Date

Establishing Internal Review to Improve the Quality of Outputs
and to Promote Blame-Free Norms
in a Shared Service Company
An Insider Action Research
Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the
Degree of Master in Business Administration
Submitted by:
Alyssa Mae Acielo
11670037
November 11, 2019

Establishing Internal Review to Improve the Quality of Outputs 2
Table of Contents
Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................................. 2

List of Figures ......................................................................................................................................................... 4
List of Tables ........................................................................................................................................................... 5
Acknowledgement ................................................................................................................................................ 6
Abstract ..................................................................................................................................................................... 7
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Rationale ................................................................................................................ 8
Issue / Problem / Opportunity.................................................................................................................... 8
Significance of Action Research ............................................................................................................... 10
Chapter 2 – Background and Context......................................................................................................... 11
Company Profile ............................................................................................................................................. 11
Industry ............................................................................................................................................................. 12
Organizational Structure ............................................................................................................................ 12
Reconciliation Control Team ..................................................................................................................... 13
Reconciliation Control Organizational Structure .............................................................................. 14
External Stakeholders .................................................................................................................................. 15
Performance Survey ..................................................................................................................................... 16
Position of the Researcher ......................................................................................................................... 17
Chapter 3 – Methodology and Methods of Inquiry ............................................................................... 19
The Action Research Cycle ......................................................................................................................... 19
Methods of Data Collection ........................................................................................................................ 21
First Person Inquiry...................................................................................................................................... 21
ORJI ................................................................................................................................................................. 22
Ladder of Inference .................................................................................................................................. 22
Left – hand/Double Column .................................................................................................................. 24
Meta-learning.............................................................................................................................................. 24
Second Person Inquiry................................................................................................................................. 26
Forms of Inquiry ........................................................................................................................................ 26
Force Field Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 27
Systems Thinking ...................................................................................................................................... 27
Third Person Inquiry .................................................................................................................................... 28
Change Management Strategy .................................................................................................................. 28

Addressing Role Duality, Organizational Politics, and Ethical Concerns ................................. 30
Chapter 4 – Stories and Outcomes – First Cycle..................................................................................... 34
Constructing .................................................................................................................................................... 34
Planning............................................................................................................................................................. 39
Taking Action .................................................................................................................................................. 43
Evaluation ......................................................................................................................................................... 46
Chapter 5 - Meta-learning After First Cycle ............................................................................................. 49
Content Reflection ......................................................................................................................................... 49
Process Reflection ......................................................................................................................................... 50
Premise Reflection ........................................................................................................................................ 51
Chapter 6 - Stories and Outcomes – Second Cycle ................................................................................ 52
Constructing .................................................................................................................................................... 52
Planning............................................................................................................................................................. 55
Taking Action .................................................................................................................................................. 57
Evaluation ......................................................................................................................................................... 59
Chapter 7 - Meta-learning After Second Cycle ........................................................................................ 62
Content Reflection ......................................................................................................................................... 62
Process Reflection ......................................................................................................................................... 63
Premise Reflection ........................................................................................................................................ 64
What changed in Me? ................................................................................................................................... 65
What changed in Others? ............................................................................................................................ 66
What changed in the Organization? ....................................................................................................... 66
Chapter 8 - Extrapolation to a Broader Context and Articulation of Usable Knowledge ....... 68
References ............................................................................................................................................................ 70
Appendices ........................................................................................................................................................... 73
Appendix 1. Research Ethics Checklist F .............................................................................................. 73
Appendix 2. Research Ethics General Checklist ................................................................................. 79
Appendix 3. Research Ethics Checklist A .............................................................................................. 83
Appendix 4. Informed Consent of Participants .................................................................................. 91
List of Figures
Figure 1. Cycle of Blaming and Error within the Team 9

Figure 2.Company SSC – Organizational Structure 13
Figure 3. Manila Reconciliation Control – Old Organizational Structure 14
Figure 4. Manila Reconciliation Control – New Organizational Structure 15
Figure 5. External Stakeholders 16
Figure 6. The Ultimate Question 17
Figure 7. The Action Research Cycle 19
Figure 8. Spiral of Action Research 20
Figure 9. Ladder of Inference 23
Figure 10. Meta-Cycle of Action Research 25
Figure 11. Lewin’s Change Management Model 29
Figure 12. The DMAIC Process 30
Figure 13. Role duality in first-, second- and third-person practice 31
Figure 14. Politics and Ethics in first-, second- and third-person practice 32
Figure 15. Force Field Analysis 37
Figure 16. Old Process Flow 38
Figure 17. New Process Flow 41
Figure 18. Error Tracker Before Action Research 43
Figure 19. Reconciliation Control Tracker 45
Figure 20. Format of Classroom Training Email Invites 58
Figure 21. Screenshot of Calendar for Classroom Training 58
Figure 22. Error Tracker After Cycle 1 and Cycle 2 Implementation 60
List of Tables
Table 1. Timeline of Huddle Implementation 36

Table 2. July 11, 2019 ORJI 40
Table 3. Cycle 1 Planned Timeline 42
Table 4. Error Categories and Weights 43
Table 5. Cycle 1 Task Rating Categories 44
Table 6. Active Inquiry for Cycle 1 Evaluation 47
Table 7. Left-hand Column – Conversation with Team Leader 52
Table 8. Ladder of Inference Cycle 2 Construction 53
Table 9. Task Rating Categories and Weight Allocation 55
Table 10. Final Task Allocation Summary 57
Acknowledgment
I would like to express my sincerest appreciation to my family, for being my main
inspiration and source of motivation. Even if pursuing a master’s degree hindered me from going
home to the province most of the time and attending some family events, you continuously
showed your support.
All my MBA Professors, for all the knowledge and experiences they have shared
throughout my MBA journey.
My teammates, who willingly participated in this action research for all the help you
have extended.
To my team leader, for understanding that I have to work on my school papers after
work and for willingly proofreading my paper.
To my friends, for all the encouragement and all the help you have contributed in
improving this paper.
My adviser, Dr. Ben Teehankee, who passionately helped me understand and improve
my thinking process which made this action research possible.
To the DLSU Scholarship program, for providing financial help and making this MBA
journey possible.
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my boyfriend for all the support,
encouragement and for believing in me even when I would doubt my own abilities. Thank you
for understanding that pursuing a master’s degree is one of my priorities.
Our Almighty God, for the strength and guidance in everything I do and for giving me
the people mentioned above and using them as instruments in attaining one of my goals. I am
truly grateful.
Abstract
This action research is focused on establishing an internal review of the reports and tasks
being performed by the Reconciliation Control team. The primary objective is to improve the
quality of outputs being sent to the stakeholders. Furthermore, this paper aims to improve the
relationship of the members by establishing a basis of accountability on each task being
performed and to eliminate the blame game within the team eventually. DMAIC and Kurt
Lewin’s change management were used as the frameworks to achieve the goals of this research.
The first cycle involves the creation of a tracker with the list of all the reports and tasks
being prepared by the team. Each task was then assessed and categorized as low, medium or high
based on their complexity, volume, and impact. Depending on the category of each task, a
certain level of review was assigned. Level 1 reviewers were identified for tasks with medium
rating while level 1 and level 2 reviewers were assigned for tasks rated as high. The same tracker
was used by the team to monitor the timely completion of each task.
The second cycle includes modification of the task allocation. Weights were assigned
based on the rating of the task and the role being performed. Preparer role was given more
weight followed by level 1 and 2 reviewers. Also, the minimal rating was added to differentiate
the weight given on tasks requiring manual effort from those that simply involves monitoring.
Cycle 1 of this action research revealed that the knowledge gap is evident within the team.
Classroom training sessions were then conducted in the second cycle to address the issue.
In the end, this action research successfully improved the quality of the outputs, as well
as the relationship of the members within the team.

Chapter 1 - Purpose and Rationale
Issue / Problem / Opportunity
The company launched a quarterly survey rolled out to various offshore managers from
multiple locations to ensure client satisfaction. The focus of the leaders is to improve the result
of the survey every quarter. The last part of the survey asks each respondent a question critical to
the company’s performance improvement - “On a scale of 1 to 10, how likely is it that you
would recommend the Manila team to other business units?” Manila Reconciliation Control
Team got a score of 6 out of 10. Three contributing factors were mentioned: dependency of the
team to offshore counterparts for complex issues, poor quality of outputs and reports, and slow
hiring process.
The team decided to focus on the first two factors mentioned, simply because these are
the ones controllable by the team, while the HR-related issue was communicated with the HR
department. This action research is limited to the improvement of the outputs and reports alone
since actions were already taken to address the dependency of the team to the offshore
counterparts. Daily huddles and maintenance of issue log were successfully implemented outside
this research due to time constraints.
Based on the observations and discussions, we have identified that the lack of strong
internal control contributes to the poor quality of reports. Upon completion of a report, a file is
directly being sent by a team member to our offshore managers without having any internal
review. Also, each error encountered by the team is not being communicated to the rest of the
team, therefore, the same error is being committed after the rotation of tasks.
This affects the relationship of the team; team members blame each other for recurring
errors. Whenever someone is tapped for the errors they have committed, members usually have
someone to blame. These errors were then being taken personally, communication within the
team is being cut-off and the practice creates a cycle of error.
The action Offshore

taken to solve manager
the error was sends back
not shared/ the report for
discussed correction
The team member

Team avoids discussing
blames someone for
the error
the error committed
Blaming causes
tension within
the team
Figure 1. Cycle of Blaming and Error within the Team
According to Schein, Jackson & Gray (2019), “responsibility and praiseworthiness or
blameworthiness even correlates in extraordinary situations where causality does not necessarily
track blameworthiness”. The team members tend to blame people committing an error without
considering other possible causes such as a faulty system or process. This practice negatively
affects the relationship of the people within the team causing more errors as shown in Figure 1.
This research aims to improve the internal control of the team and eventually, the quality
of the reports and outputs being submitted to the offshore managers.

Significance of Action Research
The company believes that the high quality of output is one of the key success factors for
a shared service center. We are not in direct competition with any of the companies within the
industry but improving current status is critical to earning a wider scope of work. Service level
agreements are expected to be met and surpassed to please the clients.
With the Quarter 1 survey result, we cannot expect additional workload from our
managers. The team seems to be fully utilized based on our existing time trackers, but in reality,
this is due to reworks. These reworks hinder the team’s opportunity to look closely at the
existing processes and implement improvements. If the team will not address the issue
identified, the worst thing that can happen is for our managers to request our processes to be
migrated back to their local entities.
The resolution of the issue may also lead to the improvement of the quality of the
relationship of the team. The collaborative effort being required by action research can be our
starting point in establishing rapport with each of the members. This will help the team in finding
the proper management tool to improve the accuracy, timeliness, and accountability of each task
we perform.
Personally, tools associated with action research such as ORJI, ladder of inference, and
left-hand column can help me be aware of my thought process. They can help me assess the way
I react and how I let my judgment affect my actions. Leading this action research allows me to
put into action the leadership theories I learned throughout my MBA journey.
Chapter 2 – Background and Context
Company Profile
Due to the nature of the company’s main business, we cannot disclose the identity of the
organization in this paper. The name Company ABC was used to hide the identity of the mother
company while the name Company SSC was used for the shared service company where the
action research took place.
Company SSC is one of the four major shared service centers of Company ABC - a
Chicago-based global financial services provider. Company ABC offers wealth management,
asset servicing, and asset management. From the day the bank was established in 1889, the
company’s enduring principles have remained constant – service, expertise, and integrity. It
established its service centers with the guidance of these three principles.
With the continuous growth of the bank, it strategically built Company SSC in February
2014. Since then, the company showed its capabilities and maintained an excellent standard.
Hence, more tasks are being transferred from various service centers to Company SSC. The
company now operates with 42 different teams and with more than 700 employees.
Service centers of the bank across multiple locations operate in a hub-spoke relationship.
It has one hub based on each of the three regions – EMEA, APAC, and North America and the
rest of the centers operate as a spoke. Processes for each entity within the same region are
interrelated. A shared service center based in Singapore was originally designated as the hub of
the Asia Pacific region. However, the designation was then moved to Company SSC due to its
growing population and built expertise. The location’s growth is evidenced by the multiple
processes being migrated from other service centers to Manila.

Industry
Company SSC is a shared service company. Shared Service Center was defined by
Richter & Bruhl (2017) as a partly autonomous business unit that operates consolidated support
services, such as accounting and human resources and provides services to internal clients.
According to Zeynip Aksin & Masini (2007), it can also be defined as a “strategy of
standardizing, streamlining, and consolidating common business processes in an organization, to
improve efficiency and effectiveness with both cost reduction and overall profitability in mind”.
Emergence of Shared Service Centers across the globe was brought by the growing pressure to
reduce costs and improve efficiency (Zeynip Aksin & Masini, 2007).
Richter & Bruhl (2017) mentioned that more than 75% of Fortune 500 companies have
established models of shared services to gain superior performance by cost savings and service
enhancements. Just like these companies, Company A built Company SSC in Manila with the
same goals. As a service center, Company SSC is required to improve processes that will either
reduce costs through time-saving or enhance services to improve client satisfaction.
Organizational Structure
Company SSC is headed by a Country Executive who at the same time is the global head
of all the service centers. Under her direct management are five Senior Vice Presidents from
Corporate & Institutional Services (C&IS), Human Resources, Finance, Administration and Risk
Management. The team in scope, Manila Reconciliation Team, is under the Accounting and
Control of the Finance Department.

Figure 2.Company SSC – Organizational Structure
Reconciliation Control Team
Part of Company ABC’s strategy is to build a Reconciliation Control Team based in
Manila under the Global Financial Control umbrella. One employee was hired to take-on Europe,
Middle East and Africa (EMEA) and the Asia Pacific (APAC) processes in September 2017. The
team officially went live with three full-time employees in March 2018 with the ownership of
EMEA and APAC tasks and some global processes. Manila Reconciliation Control Team
continued to grow and expand in scope; two additional employees were on-boarded in October
2018 to take on the North America (NA) tasks and the remaining global processes being handled
by the offshore managers. Currently, the team is operating globally, supporting finance teams
across three regions.
The team acts as the primary administrator of the balance sheet reconciliation system of
the bank - Trintech Cadency. The main responsibility is to mitigate balance sheet risks; all
reconciling items being raised in the system are being analyzed, challenged, escalated and
reported to the corporate controller and global stakeholders. Reconciliation Control team also
administers the Close module of the system where all month-end tasks of the global finance team
are being maintained. The team ensures that all these tasks are being done on time. Apart from
that, they also perform Global Financial Control’s month-end tasks. As administrators of the
system, the team’s responsibilities include the issue management and resolution of any queries
being raised by the global Trintech users. Lastly, the team also assists with the governance and
oversight of the reconciliation policy of the bank via targeted training to new system users and
through reconciliation testing.
Reconciliation Control Organizational Structure
Figure 3. Manila Reconciliation Control – Old Organizational Structure
The team was previously directly reporting to the offshore managers as seen in Figure 3,
with no relation with the managers in the Manila office. Offshore managers are responsible for
the review and sign-off of our reports. They also handle all administrative functions such as
timesheet approval, performance evaluation and appropriation of monetary benefits.

Figure 4. Manila Reconciliation Control – New Organizational Structure
Due to the continuous growth of the entire Manila Finance Team and to create more
opportunities for the employees, the structure was modified. The team now functionally reports
to offshore managers while administratively to Manila managers. A team leader role was created
to oversee the performance of the team locally. The associate accountants and the team leader are
directly reporting to the Manila-based Country Team Leader and the finance head, ultimately.
All decisions related to the staffs’ career progression, short-term and long-term benefits, and
overall wellness are being handled by the Manila executives. Process-related matters are still
being handled by the offshore managers. This includes process improvements, identification of
processes to be migrated to the team and signing-off of the team’s outputs.
External Stakeholders
Account balances from various systems being used by the bank such as PeopleSoft,
Midas, Fundmaster, and TLM are being automatically fed into the Trintech Cadency system.
These are the balances being reconciled by users before the certification of their accounts. The
accuracy and timeliness of the balances are both critical, thus, files are being closely monitored
by the team.
Figure 5. External Stakeholders
Once reconciliations are completed, the team generates reports from the Cadency system.
All reconciling items captured will then be analyzed and reported. Final reports are being
distributed to the controllers and CFOs to guide them in their decision-making. Copies are also
being sent out to account owners, managers, and reconcilers for their monitoring and resolution.
Performance Survey
A performance survey was rolled out to finance offshore managers. The survey was
created based on Fred Reichheld’s book – The Ultimate Question. Reichheld (2006) crafted the
ultimate question as “How likely is it that you would recommend this company to a colleague or
friend?” He mentioned that customers can be classified as promoters, passives, and detractors;
promotors being those loyal enthusiasts who keep on purchasing the company’s goods or
services and urge their friends to do the same. Passives, on the other hand, are those satisfied but
unenthusiastic customers who can easily be won by competitors and lastly, detractors are those
unhappy customers. The classification of customers depends on the responses they’ve given and
is based on figure 6.
Figure 6. The Ultimate Question

Source: Reichheld (2006)
The survey was initially rolled out in Q1 of 2019, and the Manila Reconciliation Team
got a score of 6 out of 10. From figure 6, rating of 6 falls under the “not at all likely” category,
hence, it should be one of the team’s concerns. Our offshore managers decide on which tasks can
be transferred to the team and if our goal is to expand in scope, this is not attainable yet based on
the survey results.
Position of the Researcher
I am an Associate Accountant and part of the Reconciliation Control Team under the
Global Financial Control (GFC) umbrella. As seen in figures 3 and 4, I am directly reporting to a
Manila-based Team Leader and the GFC head of London and Chicago, functionally. I am one of
the senior members of the team and handled process migrations covering both global and
regional processes.
Also, I am recognized by the team as the subject-matter expert when it comes to our
processes. They usually seek my help and ask for my opinion when resolving complex issues. I
also act as our offshore managers’ point of contact when they have concerns in our processes.
Because our team leader was on-boarded last June 2019, I am expected to assist him in leading
the team.
Chapter 3 – Methodology and Methods of Inquiry
The Action Research Cycle
According to Coghlan and Brannick (2014), action research aims to address
organizational issues together with the collaborators by integrating both theories and actions
through groups of related actions. On the other hand, Shani and Pasmore (as cited in Coghlan
and Brannick, 2014) provided a more restricted definition as:
“Action research may be defined as an emergent inquiry process in which applied

behavioral science knowledge is integrated with existing organizational knowledge and
applied to solve real organizational problems. It is simultaneously concerned with
bringing about change in organizations, in developing self-help competencies in
organizational members and adding to scientific knowledge. Finally, it is an evolving
process that is undertaken in a spirit of collaboration and co-inquiry (p.5).”
Coghlan and Brannick (2014) presented an action research cycle composed of a pre-step,
context and purpose and four basic steps – constructing, planning action, taking action and
evaluating action. The cycle of these steps is shown in figure 7.
Figure 7. The Action Research Cycle

Source: (Coghlan and Brannick, 2014)
According to Coghlan and Brannick (2014), action research goes through a cycle of the
following four main steps:
• Constructing – The first step of the action research where construction of issues happens.
It also involves the thorough articulation of the practical and theoretical foundations of
actions to be taken (Coghlan and Brannick, 2014).
• Planning – Planning involves the collaborative identification of actions based on the
context and purpose of the project (Coghlan and Brannick, 2014).
• Taking action – Plans are being implemented collaboratively at this stage (Coghlan and
Brannick, 2014).
• Evaluating action – Both intended and unintended results of the actions taken are
examined to see if the original constructing fitted, if the actions taken matched the
constructing, if the action was taken appropriately and what will feed into the next cycle
of constructing, planning and action (Coghlan and Brannick, 2014). This creates cycles of
action research as illustrated in figure 8.
Figure 8. Spiral of Action Research

Methods of Data Collection
The data presented in this research were gathered through the three voices and audiences
of action research. According to Coghlan and Brannick (2014), it is through collaborative efforts
in constructing, planning, taking action and evaluating action using the first and second person
practice that we learn to attain that actionable knowledge for the third person audience (p.7).
I used first-person inquiry in the issue identification through my thoughts, observations
and experiences which were diligently logged and reflected in a mobile application – Journey.
Collaborative planning was then performed through team meetings and one-on-one discussions
with the team leader and other team members. Books, research publications, professional
journals, and articles were used to support this research.
First Person Inquiry
According to Coghlan and Brannick (2014), this research is done as an inquiry on one’s
self, allowing an individual to be aware of their approach in life. This practice can take
researchers upstream, where they can inquire about their basic assumptions, desires, intentions,
and philosophy. It can also take them downstream, where they inquire about their behavior (p.7).
Observations, thoughts, reflections, and realizations were logged in Journey during the
entire duration of this action research. It enabled me to question my actions based on my
observations and beliefs. Being aware of the way I process information helped me collaborate
with my teammates better. First-person inquiry helped me be open-minded and inquire into
myself before looking into other person’s reactions.

ORJI
Understanding one’s thought process is vital in any relationship because if one cannot
observe and evaluate their feelings, biases, and impulses, they cannot tell whether their actions
are based on perceptions of reality or own needs to express themselves (Schein, 1999). A
realistic ORJI model – Observation, Reaction, Judgement and Intervention, was then
introduced by Schein to serve as a framework in understanding one’s experience.
It is in observation where we should register accurately through our senses the actual
occurrences in our environment, we then react emotionally to what we have observed, and we
analyze and make judgments based on these feelings and observations before we intervene in a
particular situation (Schein, 1999).
I incorporated ORJI in my daily reflection through a diary application called Journey. It
helped me understand the flow of thoughts, reactions, judgments and actions made based on
the situations. Recognizing that I often fall into some traps improved the way I interact with
my collaborators.
Ladder of Inference
According to Argyris, Putnam and Smith (1985), the ladder of inference is a tool which
plots observable data and experiences and the meanings and assumptions directly attributed to
them, and how conclusions and beliefs affect the actions taken. The first rung includes the data
which can be directly observed through the senses. The second rung is where we add our
meanings based on our personal experiences or culture. And lastly, the third rung is where
conclusions are drawn. Ladder should be climbed from the bottom to the top without skipping
a step because by doing so, we might misinterpret a situation and lead to an unnecessary
action. The ladder of inference was illustrated by Argyris, Putnam and Smith (1985) as shown
in Figure 9.
Figure 9. Ladder of Inference

Ross (1994) mentioned that living a life without adding meaning or drawing any
conclusion is a tedious way; however, the world we live in consists of untested self-generated
beliefs. These beliefs were from our conclusions based on what we have observed and what we
have experienced in the past. He also mentioned that our ability to achieve the results we desire
is swept by our feelings that: our beliefs are the truth, the truth is obvious, our beliefs are based
on real data and that the data we select are the real data (Ross, 1994).
We can also use the ladder of inference to improve daily communication through
reflection. Ross (1994) has suggested three ways of using the model: becoming more aware of
our reasoning and thinking, making them more visible to others and inquiring into other’s
thinking.
The ladder of inference provided me a tool to help me plot the data I have observed, the
meanings and assumptions I have attributed to these observations and the conclusions and
beliefs which were used as a basis of my actions. This tool helped me to be aware of the
meanings and assumptions I added to the observable data as these may cause bias,
misinterpretation, and unnecessary actions. I have logged my ladder of inference, together with
my ORJI, in my Journey application as well.
Left – hand/Double Column
The double hand column is a useful technique to uncover our privately-held thoughts
when dealing in second-person practice (Argyris, Putnam and Smith, 1985). These privately
held thoughts shape the flow of the conversation and somehow foster defensiveness. Ross
(1994) also recommended the use of the double-column in reflecting on our way of thinking
during a conversation.
After plotting and comparing my unsaid thoughts versus the things I’ve said, it showed
that I often held key information which could have brought a different flow of conversation.
Indeed, we can distort reality by holding on to our thoughts, and this might lead to
misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the person we’re having a conversation with. It is
important to stop once in a while and reflect if we can arrive with a different conclusion if we
have shared those privately-held thoughts.
Meta-learning
Meta-learning is learning about learning, as stated by Argyris (2003) (as cited in Coghlan
and Brannick, 2014). He mentioned that all inquiries within each step of the action research
cycle are critical to the development of actionable knowledge because reflections on initial
reflections make action research to be more than an everyday problem-solving.
Mezirow (1991) (as cited in Coghlan and Brannick, 2014), identified the three forms of
reflection: content, process, and premise. Content reflection is where we think about the issue
and what is happening. Process reflection is where we think about procedures and strategies on
how things are being done. Lastly, Premise reflection is where we critique the underlying
assumptions and perspectives. Figure 10 presents how these forms of reflection are applied to
the action research cycle.
Figure 10. Meta-Cycle of Action Research

My reflections on the first cycle of this action research had a huge contribution in
identifying the focal issue of the second cycle. While reflecting, I was able to see other factors
contributing to the main issue identified in this action research. I have used meta-learning in
reflecting on whether I have used effective tools while taking action and reflect on the potential
room for improvements. Also, meta-learning was used to check on my assumptions and values
which were either reinforced or upheld and how this action research modified them.
Second Person Inquiry
Second person inquiry involves working with others on issues of mutual concern which
can either be done through face-to-face dialogue, conversation, and joint action. The quality of
this type of research is vital to the quality of action research due to its collaborative and
democratic nature (Coghlan and Brannick, 2014).
Forms of Inquiry
Schein (1999) viewed active inquiry and listening as status-equilibrating processes and
identified the trick to a better discussion – to be actively in charge of the inquiry process while
maintaining a supportive listening posture. This active inquiry process was based on the
assumption that unless the clients feel secure, they will not reveal the relevant information
related to the story and the entire process might operate with incorrect data.
The three forms of active inquiry were also identified by Schein (1999) as pure inquiry,
diagnostic inquiry, and confrontive inquiry. Pure Inquiry is where the client is in control of
both the process and content of the conversation. The role of the consultant is to encourage the
client to disclose more information and to listen neutrally. One may use questions such as
“What is the situation?”, “Can you tell me what is going on?” or phrases like “Describe the
situation” and “Tell me more”. Diagnostic inquiry, on the other hand, is where the control is
being transferred the client to the consultant. The consultant now manages the process of
analyzing and elaborating the content without adding any personal ideas, suggestions, advice
or options. Emotional responses, reasons for actions or events and actions are being explored to
gather additional relevant information. Lastly, Schein (1999) explained confrontive inquiry as
the type where the consultant is allowed to share ideas and reactions based on the stories heard.
By sharing their ideas, the consultant slowly forces the client to think about the situation from a
new perspective.
The different forms of inquiry were used during team meetings and one-on-one
conversations. It served as my guide in asking questions to my collaborators while ensuring
that no personal suggestions were being mixed with the inquiry process. Using the sample
questions presented by Schein (1999), the forms of inquiry also helped ensure that no
important information was being missed out. The confrontive inquiry enabled me to let my
teammates view the situation from a different perspective without even forcing them to. Lastly,
it was also a reminder that there are times when listening is as important as speaking.
Force Field Analysis
Force field analysis assumes that there are forces driving and restraining change in every
situation but Kurt Lewin advised that reducing these restraining forces is more effective than
adding driving forces (Coghlan and Brannick, 2014). According to Houston (2014), other causal
mechanisms work together with others to produce beneficial outcomes while others oppose. We
came up with the force field analysis by identifying multiple causal mechanisms and
categorizing them as either driving forces or restraining forces. Afterward, the team worked on
the restraining forces to improve the situation.
Systems Thinking
Systems thinking refers to seeing the organization as a whole and made up of interrelated
and interdependent parts. Organizations may be viewed as systems in which planning, control,
structural, technological and behavioral systems are interdependent and interrelated. In systems
thinking, linear cause-and-effect analysis is replaced by viewing patterns of interaction which
mutually influence each other. It is a way of seeing the system and where you are in it and
engaging in collaborative dialogue about how multiple constructions affect what happens and
how it will affect construction and meanings that people ascribe to their intentions and actions
(Coghlan and Brannick, 2014).
Third Person Inquiry
Third-person inquiry aims to create communities of inquiry involving people beyond the
direct second person inquiry. It is impersonal and actualized through the dissemination of
information through reporting, publishing and extrapolating from the concrete to the general
(Coghlan and Brannick, 2014).
Change Management Strategy
Change is crucial, especially for organizations in growing, highly competitive business
environments (Hussain et al., 2018). Company SSC is often pressured with targeted cost-saving
process improvements requiring strategies to successfully implement and manage the changes.
The study of Moran & Brightman (2000) concluded that change management is not simply about
managing change, but is the process of continually reviewing an organization’s direction,
structure, and capabilities to serve the ever-changing needs of external and internal customers.
Anastacia (2015) believes that change management takes time, expertise, dedication and
efforts to be successfully implemented. This action research used Lewin’s change management
model in implementing a series of changes within the organization. Lewin’s change
management model is one of the most popular and effective models in understanding
organizational changes (Anastacia, 2015). He used the block of ice as an analogy; to change its
form, one must unfreeze it before it can be changed and once the water is in the desired mold,
we’ll then have to refreeze it. Anastacia (2015) provided a more detailed explanation of the three
stages:
1. Unfreeze: This first stage of Lewin’s change management model involves
preparation for the change to be implemented. “This phase is important because
most people around the world try to resist change, and it is important to break this
status quo” (Anastacia, 2015).
2. Change: This is the stage where change takes place and this process may take
time because it involves adjustments of the people affected by the change
(Anastacia, 2015). Communication is one of the keys for this stage to successfully
happen.
3. Refreeze: “Now that the change has been accepted, embraced and implemented
by people, the company or organization begins to become stable again”
(Anastacia, 2015). Things start going back to normal in this stage.
Unfreeze Change Refreeze
Figure 11. Lewin’s Change Management Model
DMAIC framework was also used as a guide in implementing the changes within the
organization. DMAIC is a Six Sigma tool for improving processes (Sokovic, Pavletic, & Kern
Pipan, 2010). According to Shankar (2009), this methodology makes use of tools and techniques
logically to arrive at a sustainable solution to the identified problem. It is an acronym for five
interconnected phases: define measure, analyze, improve and control. Sokovic, Pavletic, & Kern
Pipan (2010) defined these phases as:

1. Define by identifying, prioritizing, and selecting the right project.
2. Measure key process characteristics, the scope of parameters and their
performances.
3. Analyze by identifying key causes and process determinants.
4. Improve by changing the process and optimizing performance.
5. Control by sustaining the gain.
Figure 12. The DMAIC Process

Source: (Sokovic, Pavletic, & Kern Pipan, 2010)
Addressing Role Duality, Organizational Politics, and Ethical Concerns
Conducting action research in our organization may entail conflict in my roles as a
researcher and as an employee. Although my role as an action researcher and as an employee
does not have that much difference because I am expected to lead the team, I still need to be
careful in implementing the changes. By reflecting on the things I’ve said and on my actions, I
can be self-aware of my actions and emotions. It can also help me ensure that I am not, in any
way, forcing things to happen just to be able to implement my action research. All feedback and
suggestions from the team were heard and addressed. I made sure that I am open-minded about
the things we have set aside for disagreement. Figure 13, created by Coghlan & Brannick (2014),
was used as a guide in addressing role duality.
Figure 13. Role duality in first-, second- and third-person practice

I upheld and valued both roles as a researcher and employee throughout the duration of
this action research. All duties that I have to perform as an employee was prioritized,
documentation of action research were done beyond the office hours. I made sure that in times of
conflicting demands from both roles, I engaged in conversations to negotiate. Fortunately, I have
a team leader who understands the demands of being an MBA student. He allowed me to stay
and work at home so I can perform the responsibilities of being a student and an employee but I
made sure that I have performed all my responsibilities to the team before working on my action
research paper.
Similar to the possible conflicts on the different roles being taken, I also took extra
caution in ensuring that I am dealing with organizational politics appropriately. Leading this
action research and implementing big changes while having identical title with the rest of the
team might be taken negatively. I made sure that all efforts contributed by the team members
were done voluntarily. Also, open discussions were held to hear all their concerns. All actions to
be taken were consulted with the team leader to confirm that plans were aligned with the goals of
the entire team and not just with the goal of the action research.
As mentioned by Coghlan & Brannick (2014), action research requires collaborative
efforts. My team was not only involved in performing the cycles of the action research but they
were the secondary sources of my data as well. I emphasized that their participation is voluntary
and consent forms were signed before their involvement. No one was forced to comply and
participate in the series of activities taken.
Due to the confidentiality of the data being processed by the team, I was warned that no
financial data should be used in this research. Also, the identity of the organization was hidden as
agreed with the higher management. I ensured that I complied with these agreements in
documenting the entire research.
Coghlan & Brannick (2014) provided a guide in dealing with organization politics and
ethical considerations.
Figure 14. Politics and Ethics in first-, second- and third-person practice
Having the RVR Code of Conduct as the primary guideline for this action research, I
made sure that all actions implemented were for the common good. I did not take any action just
for my personal interest and at the expense of the organization. I respected each individual
involved in this research, as well as their values, ideas and opinions. Action research checklists
provided by De La Salle University were also used as a guide to ensure that ethical
considerations will be addressed. As a member of the Lasallian community, I upheld the ethical
values of the organization throughout this action research.

Chapter 4 – Stories and Outcomes – First Cycle
Constructing
The release of the result of the Q1 survey triggered this action research. When the team
received the results of the survey, we had an emergency meeting to plan on the next actions that
the team will take to improve the result. We decided to focus on the two factors controllable by
the team: dependency on the offshore counterparts and poor quality of reports/outputs. The first
factor was actioned outside the action research. After a series of discussions, we all agreed that a
daily huddle must be in place to have a formal venue for sharing all the issues encountered by the
team with their corresponding resolutions. We also built a dashboard and issue log to have a
repository of all the things we’ve discussed. I have presented Table 1 to show the events that
happened outside of this action research. This will give a better view of the larger issue the team
is trying to resolve.
Date Event
Constructing
The team leader called for an urgent team meeting because the results of the Q1
survey were released. I asked for our team leader’s approval to work on this issue
26-Apr-19
for my inside action research through a one-to-one conversation right after the
meeting.
With the consent of our team leader, the team had a quick discussion of the issue
without her presence. The rest of the team expressed their frustrations. I informed
them of my plan on taking the issue as my inside action research. We talked about
the 3 factors mentioned in the survey – hiring process, recurring errors on reports
29-Apr-19
and dependence of the team on the offshore counterparts for the resolution of
complex issues. We decided that we should focus on the factors within our
control, which are the errors on reports and dependence on offshore. We ended the
meeting after this, giving ourselves some time to think of the possible solutions.
Planning
We had our team meeting to discuss the plans. I suggested that we should have
daily huddles to discuss the errors encountered by each of the members of the
team, as well as the issues received and resolutions made. Everyone agreed with
2-May-19 the plan. Another teammate suggested that a dashboard should be built and
maintained. One member added that the dashboard should come with an issue log
to serve as the repository and master list of all the issues encountered by the team
and the users.
Taking Action
I was able to finalize the dashboard of the team and sent the file for everyone’s
6-May-19
approval.
After considering everyone’s suggestions, I presented the final version of the
dashboard to our team leader. She approved the dashboard; however, we had a
13-May-19 short argument about the daily huddle. She thinks that it is just a waste of time.
We ended up with the agreement of just maintaining the dashboard and issue log
to be read by each member independently.
The team leader announced that she’ll be leaving the team for some personal
17-May-19
reason. The position will remain unfilled until a new team leader is identified.
It was announced that an employee from another team will take over the team
22-May-19 leader position. With the permission of the outgoing team leader, I scheduled a
meeting with the new team leader to discuss my on-going inside action research.
The scheduled meeting. The new team leader agreed on implementing our initial
24-May-19 plan – implementation of the daily huddle. Since he will take over the team
effective 27th of May, the huddle will also be scheduled starting that same day.
We conducted the first daily huddle of the team. It was a very productive
27-May-19 discussion. All issues were discussed and the best practices of each member were
shared.
Evaluating Action
We had a meeting to evaluate the actions we've implemented. Our team leader
mentioned that we have indeed lessened the emails being forwarded to the
offshore counterparts. The dashboard and issue log were both effective in giving
24-Jun-19
us a reference whenever the team receives queries. The dashboard was amended
by the new team leader. It was agreed that the dashboard will replace the weekly
dashboard being provided to the offshore managers to avoid duplication of efforts.
Table 1. Timeline of Huddle Implementation
Daily huddles and issue log helped us address our offshore managers’ concern of being
dependent on our offshore counterparts for the resolution of complex issues. However, our
reports are still going back and forth for amendments being required by them even if most of the
errors were being communicated to the rest of the team during huddles. That is why I scheduled
a meeting to have a brainstorming session with the entire team and try to figure out the issue
causing errors in our reports/outputs.
In Kurt Lewin’s change management model, this part constitutes the unfreeze stage. In
this stage, I ensured that the members of the team will understand why we have to implement
changes and how they will add value to all of us. I also made sure that the management will give
their full support for a smooth implementation. All concerns of the team were addressed
immediately in this stage to establish collaboration among the members.
Define: To start the discussion concerning the poor quality of reports and outputs, we
first asked ourselves if we all agree with the findings. Each of us admitted that the reports were
being sent back to them for amendments. Sometimes, reports were being signed-off after it has
been amended once but there are times when reports are going back and forth for more revisions.
The meeting ended with the team leader asking us to reflect on the possible causes of these
recurring errors and the ways on how to improve the quality of our work.
We built a force field analysis to help us decide on the issue we have to focus on. Forces
driving for change identified where the willingness of the team to improve the quality of reports,
increased open communication, management’s support and the presence of 1 cross-trained
employee. Increased open communication within the team was made possible by the daily
huddles we have implemented before this cycle. On the other hand, the absence of internal
review, some team members lacking expertise on some processes and the workload pressure are
the identified forces restraining change.
Figure 15. Force Field Analysis
Since I joined the team in 2018, I have noticed that all our outputs directly go to our
offshore managers without any controls internally. It was explained that our structure is distinct
from those of the teams within the operations department, thus, no internal control is needed.
Figure 16 shows the situation before action the research.

Figure 16. Old Process Flow
What happens is that whenever an employee encounters an error, they take note of it themselves
then try to include it on their key points before submitting the next report. However, we have a
rotation of tasks every month or quarter, depending on the task. The error that the employee has
encountered and corrected might be the same error that the rest of the team will commit.
I started to share my observations with the rest of the team. I mentioned that we do not
have any internal controls on the reports being submitted. We had a change in structure to give
each employee more room for career growth. Instead of directly reporting to our offshore
managers, we now have our team leader in Manila. The team missed to keep up with this
restructuring. Our offshore managers should now be treated as our client or stakeholder and not
managers who will review for us. With the force field analysis created and the support of the
observations of the team, everyone agreed that this is indeed the main issue of the team and
should be acted upon as soon as possible.

Planning
After constructing the issue, I only have one solution in mind – to assign reviewers for
each task. I consulted the proposal to my team leader through a one-on-one discussion last July
10, 2019. We had a long discussion since there are many factors to consider such as the team
member’s capability to review, the additional time to be consumed by the review process and the
possible impacts of the plan. We have decided that not all tasks will be reviewed. We have to
assess each one to identify the complex processes which will require an internal review. Our
team leader asked me to schedule a meeting with the rest of the team to discuss the plan.
The following day, we discussed the plan of establishing an internal review within the
team. It was a heated discussion, a team member was totally against it and believes that it will
require us additional time and might affect the timeliness of the reports. Our reports must be
submitted on time because these are being used by the CFOs and department heads in their
decision making. Below is the ORJI of the conversation taken from my journal dated July 11,
2019.
We were all seated in a circular table inside a small conference room. We were
all laughing at some random jokes before we started the formal discussion of the
plan. I am the facilitator of the meeting and I started it formally by stating our
plan of assessing each task and assigning internal reviewer/s as needed. “I have
talked to Kenn concerning the plan before I present it to you, we have agreed that
Observation we need to assess each of our tasks and identify which of them will require
internal review/s. This is not yet the final plan, we are open for suggestions” I
saw that one member frowned, he raised his hand and said “Wait lang ah, sorry to
interrupt you pero wala pa tayo internal review as of now pero we already render
overtime. Pano pa natin isisingit yung review na yan? Hindi ba double work din
to?”
Reaction I calmly took in everything that he said because I have anticipated that this matter
will be raised by someone. I felt relieved that I have prepared for this kind of
argument.
I thought that he might not be against the internal review because of the possible
errors that will be attributed to him and that he is just concerned with the
additional time it will incur given that we already render overtime given the
Judgment
status quo. I also considered that he might have not encountered lots of errors in
his reports or he is just not aware that most of the time, we render overtime due
to rework.
I tried to explain that internal review might even reduce our overtime if errors
will be spotted and corrected internally rather than directly sending the reports.
Intervention
We spend hours waiting for the managers’ response and sometimes they respond
a few minutes before our shift ends hence the overtime.
Table 2. July 11, 2019 - ORJI
He then agreed with the points I’ve mentioned. The team decided that in assessing each
task, we’ll use low, medium and high as our parameters. In rating each task, we have to take into
consideration the complexity of the procedure, the volume of processes involved in a single task
and the impact of potential errors. We have also agreed that tasks rated as a medium will have
one level of review and those rated as high will have two levels.
Figure 17. New Process Flow
Our team leader was on-boarded in our team last June 15, 2019. He is relatively new and
knows limited things in our processes, so he advised that he cannot sign-off reports for the time
being. As a senior member of the team, he entrusted me with the final review of the tasks. We
communicated this plan to our offshore managers; fortunately, they’re not concerned with the
new process as long as the timeliness will not be affected. They also agreed that I can sign-off
the reports on behalf of our team leader. We have finalized the plan and created a table for our
timeline.
Employee/s
Action Needed Date Target Output
Involved
Download a list of the tasks assigned
Updated task
to the team and collate other tasks not Alyssa July 12, 2019
listing
being maintained in the system.
List of tasks with
Assess the complexity, volume, and
their
effect of each task. Use low, medium
Team members July 15, 2019 corresponding
and high as the parameters. Assign
ratings and
reviewers as required by each task.
reviewers.
The final file will be presented to the Team Leader + Approved task
July 18, 2019
team leader for his approval Alyssa listing
Final file will be rolled-out to the team Review Matrix for

Team Leader July 22, 2019
and internal review will be in place. implementation
July 22 –
Implementation of the new process Team September Reduced errors
15, 2019
Evaluation of results based on 1- September Feedback from the
Team
month cycle 15, 2019 team
Table 3. Cycle 1 Planned Timeline
Measure: The offshore counterparts maintain a tracker for all the errors they have noted
in our outputs. The team decided to use the same tracker as a basis of comparison of the quality
of outputs before and after the implementation of this action research. Since the team prepares
hundreds of tasks, we decided to capture only those medium and high rated tasks to be monitored
in the error log.
Figure 18 is a screenshot of the error log before the action research while table 4 shows
the error categories with their respective weights.

Figure 18. Error Tracker Before Action Research
Reconciliation Control
Type 1 - Core Reports/Tasks
Format - 5% Data - 10% Key Data - 15%
Incorrect
Template Incorrect Pivots Figures/Formula
Spelling Incorrect grouping leading to Error in reports Comments
Sorting Incorrect Naming convention Downloads used in the report
Grammar Incorrect Client Name/Center Numbers Incorrect Graphs
Table 4. Error Categories and Weights
Taking Action
Analyze: As planned, I created an updated listing of all our tasks with their
corresponding frequency and timelines. We scheduled a meeting on the 15th of July to
collaboratively assess each task. At first, there were some minor arguments while rating each
task. A member sees a task as high risk while someone sees it as a medium risk. To address this
concern we decided that each member will be asked to rate each task and we’ll take the average
of all the ratings we have given. We created table 5 to have a common basis in rating each task.
Rating Definition
Includes tasks related to the monitoring of automated feed files not
Low requiring any manual intervention.

Tasks to run jobs/scripts in the system.
Tasks involving simple analysis of generated data.
Medium Tasks requiring minimal manual alteration in the system.

Tasks that won’t cause any critical issue once an error is committed.
Complicated tasks involving multiple sub-processes.

Reports being used by management for decision making.
High
Tasks which will cause a domino-effect if error is committed.
Critical tasks within the system.
Table 5. Cycle 1 Task Rating Categories
After we have provided the rating for each task, we identified the level 1 and level 2
reviewers for all those rated as medium and high. We agreed that we cannot review all tasks
because this might affect the team’s productivity. We took into consideration the level of
knowledge of each member based on the existing knowledge sharing tracker of the team and our
confidence in reviewing the outputs of our teammates. We also ensured that we have equal
distributions of tasks daily. I then set a meeting with our team leader to discuss the progress with
him.
Improve: During our one-to-one conversation last July 18, I presented the completed
task list. The file contains the tasks with their corresponding frequency, due date, rating of tasks,
preparers, and reviewers. He mentioned that he is happy with the ratings of each task since we
did it together and we did not just take a team member’s perspective in all the tasks.
The task list was rolled-out to the team last July 24, just in time for the start of August
month-end. The team still found some areas for improvement. Lori thought that it might be more
efficient if we track the completion within the same tracker as well. Our team leader agreed and
asked me to adjust and lock some columns accordingly and create a macro-enabled button for the
time stamp. I was able to release a revised and final version of the tracker last July 30, 2019.
Figure 19 is a screenshot of the official task list and tracker of the team.
Figure 19. Reconciliation Control Tracker
This is the change stage in Kurt Lewin’s change management model. During the entire
process of implementation, we ensured that we communicate every progress or issues we
encounter. We took our time in adjusting to the new set-up until we get used to the new process.
Evaluation
The improvement in the outputs and reports of the team was evident. We were very
happy with the outcome of our first cycle. Quality, as defined by Swanson (1995), is the totality
of the features of the services that bear on its ability to satisfy the customers’ needs. Our offshore
managers even commended us on the changes we’ve implemented; we can say that we have
improved the quality of the reports submitted by the team. During the first month of the
implementation, we have seen that most of our outputs were signed-off by the offshore managers
without requesting for amendments. They have even proposed that after three consecutive
months of having error-free reports, some of these can be sent directly to the users without their
sign-off. Final approval will be transferred to our team and we took it as a challenge. Once this
gets implemented, this can be considered as one of the major milestones of the team. We are
committed to making it happen.
Table 5 shows the outcome of the first cycle on the perspective of each member which was
gathered through Schein’s (1999) different types of inquiry.
Type of Inquiry / Inquiry Feedback

“It is a big help in controlling errors internally, We
Pure Inquiry should have implemented this from the start.”
What can you say about our “I appreciate your initiative in implementing this
implemented process of having an change within the team. Internal review matrix is a
internal review? great tool in establishing accountability for each
process.”
“Receiving commendations from offshore
managers for delivering error-free reports have
Diagnostic Inquiry
uplifted the team’s morale. I feel more motivated
How do you feel about it?
now.”
“I’m happy with the implemented internal review. I
hope that the team can maintain the good image

we’re starting to build.”
“I feel proud that the manager did not send the
report back for amendments but to thank me for
sending a good file.”
“The reports still contain errors; the only
difference is that they are being resolved internally.
Confrontive Inquiry We still have lots of reworks. We may have to
Do you think having an internal implement a series of change to eliminate these
review alone can improve the errors.”
quality of our output? “We have to conduct another brainstorming session
Do you think we need to implement to plan the next actions we’ll have to take. The
something else? internal review is a great start but we may have to
identify another cause of the errors being
committed.”
Table 6. Active Inquiry for Cycle 1 Evaluation
However, during the peak days of the team, the task allocation was not followed. There
were days when a team member will have to delegate a task because they still have pending
reports. During the allocation, we took into consideration the daily load of the team members but
we missed to consider that some reports take more than 1 day of preparation due to dependencies
on external stakeholders. We realized that we should have incorporated the complexity or rating
of each task in assigning the tasks and that we should also check the total load of a team member
for the month.
We have also noticed that reviewing one’s report is burdensome to the reviewers. One
report takes 1-2 hours of review. We have minimized the errors being noted by our offshore
managers and reports are no longer being sent back multiple times. However, we still have the
same issue; reports are being sent back and forth internally. Even the second level of review still
requires some amendments to most of the reports. We still haven’t improved on the accuracy of
the reports being prepared by the team members. These findings led to the construction of the
second cycle of this action research.

Chapter 5 - Meta-learning After First Cycle
Content Reflection
The implementation of the first cycle of this action research brought massive
improvements to the team’s reports and outputs being sent out to our stakeholders. These are
evident in the commendations of our offshore managers and the drastic decrease in the errors
being noted by the external recipients of the outputs. From this feedback, I realized that we were
able to identify the appropriate issue for this action research.
However, we missed to check the knowledge of each team member on the tasks and
reports. This factor is critical and should have been addressed before establishing internal
controls. Errors were still being committed; they were just being addressed internally. I was not
able to raise this concern because I believed that I do not have the right to question what they
know, and because we do not perform peer reviews before this action research, we were not
aware of these errors. Because of this, we also missed to consider assessing the quality of
training we had upon joining the team.
Upon completion of the first cycle, I realized that there are issues waiting to be noticed
and actioned by the employees. I just used to ignore them without noticing the accumulated
impact of the reworks caused by these issues. After being familiarized with the first-person
inquiry tools, I became more open-minded that I started noticing the faulty processes in our
team. They were just being concealed by the workarounds available. The issue constructed was
known to all of us even before this action research, yet no one took the initiative to fix the
situation of the team. I believe that the poor relation of the individuals within the team hindered
the improvements. I can say that communication served as a powerful key in unlocking the
potentials in each one of us. The group discussions related to this research motivated each team
member to take their part and share their ideas.
Process Reflection
In establishing an internal review within the team, we had to assess each task and assign
reviewers accordingly. The process of assessing each task together as a team and considering
individual’s assessment was one of the factors which contributed to the improvements caused by
the first cycle. I believe that I earned my teammates’ trust during this stage as I could have
assigned the ratings myself but I insisted that this process should be done as a team. This trust
improved the quality of the relationship I have with them and motivated them more to contribute
to this action research.
However, after implementing the internal review, the blame game within the team was
not addressed. Instead, the team members had concrete evidence of whom the blame can be
passed on to. This happened because we missed to clarify the responsibilities and limitations of
the roles identified and assigned. We should have reiterated that the preparers of the reports will
still be held accountable for any errors. They might have misunderstood the responsibilities of
the reviewers. This could have been avoided if we have just made everything clear from the start.
During the planning and implementation stage, I shared the action research cycle with the
rest of the team members, as well as the tools being used in the research. I believe this helped me
convince them that I am willing to take any constructive criticisms or suggestions from them. It
encouraged them to share their ideas on how we can further improve the quality of our outputs.
We all became open on suggestions as we are all aware that each action we take affects the entire
team. This type of collaboration is what helped us go through the cycle smoothly.
Premise Reflection
Before starting this action research, I believed that the higher the title you possess the
more respect you gain from your teammates. This belief hindered me to spearhead projects; I
feared that the three other associate accountants will take it negatively. After leading the
implementation of the first cycle, I realized that once other people witness your capabilities, they
will eventually follow and respect you no matter what your position in the organization is.
I used to remain silent most of the time; I cannot confront other people on the errors they
have committed. I assumed keeping my thoughts and emotions, and avoiding the issue is better
than confronting people. This action research made me realize that we have to weigh the
situation and assess whether we should speak up or ignore the situation. It has taught me that
being transparent and vocal, in the right situation, will help you attain your goals.
Chapter 6 - Stories and Outcomes – Second Cycle
Constructing
The construction of the second cycle came earlier than expected due to the concerns we
encountered during the implementation of the first cycle. My team leader initiated a catch-up
related to my on-going action research last August 29, 2019. He mentioned that based on his
observations, we might have not considered all critical factors in the allocation of the tasks.
Table 7 is a left-hand column of our conversation.
What I was thinking What was said

Kenn: Okay na ko sa rating ng mga tasks, I
will not question the way you did it because
you took everyone’s perspective. Maybe we
should work on the allocation of the tasks. As I
see it, you are overloaded. Also, one of your
teammates approached me, masyado daw sya
loaded and yung reports nya daw kasi di
naman nakakaya matapos in a day. Na-
accumulate na lang hanggang magpending
lahat sakanya at magsabay sabay ang deadline.
Ha? Where did he get that idea? I am sure that Me: But we even took into consideration all
we allocated each task equally daily. We even our ad-hoc tasks and sure po ako na allocated
included all the reviewer functions that we sya equally on a daily basis. I just took all
have. Aside from the regular tasks, I even monitoring tasks po, kaya siguro mukhang
added the ad-hoc tasks of the team. overloaded.
Kenn: We need to review everything. Set-up a
meeting, we need to discuss this together as a
team to ensure na everyone’s insight will be
taken into consideration.
Table 7. Left-hand Column – Conversation with Team Leader

During the implementation of the first cycle, we have discovered another issue requiring
immediate action from the team. We have indeed minimized the errors being spotted by our
offshore managers, but reports are still being sent back and forth internally for amendments.
Being the reviewer of the majority of the reports, I experienced the burden first hand. I thought
that even if we have met our objectives, this is still not a healthy situation for the team. We
decided to address both findings at the same time.
Every time I ask the team members to revise their report, they will respond with “akala
ko ganito sya gawin, ganito kasi naturo sakin”. Even if the report had passed through the level 1
reviewer, I can still spot some errors and I get the same response after asking them. I used the
ladder of inference to safely guide me in processing this observation. Table 8 reflects the ladder
of inference taken from my journal.
I consulted my team leader regarding the idea of having s series of

Actions
classroom training.
I believe that classroom training will help us attain a common
Beliefs
understanding of the processes.
The team will be able to reduce the errors being made by the
Conclusions
preparers if they have a full understanding of what they're doing.
I assumed that we do not have the same level of understanding and
Assumptions
knowledge of most of our processes.
Meaning Employees were not trained the same way.

Employees commit errors even if they perform the tasks exactly the
Selected Data
way how they were trained.
Every time I review a report and ask the preparer to revise it, their
response will always be “akala ko ganito sya gawin, ganito kasi
Observed
Data naturo sakin”. I also get the same response from the reviewers once I
ask them about the errors I've spotted after their sign-off.
Table 8. Ladder of Inference Cycle 2 Construction

When I was on-boarded on the team last April 2018, there were already two full-time
employees performing the responsibilities of the team. The associate accountant was assigned as
my buddy while the accountant serves as our senior member. My buddy was tasked to train me
on the processes but most of the time I rely on the procedure documents that we have and
explore the user acceptance training (UAT) environment of our system. I noticed that my buddy
knows every “how” of the process but not the reasons why we perform those tasks. I asked her
back then on how she learned the processes and she told me that everything she knows was
based on the procedure documents. Two additional employees were then on-boarded before the
end of the same year. I was asked to be Lori’s buddy, while Rojanie was assigned to be Pai’s
buddy. Upon being fully immersed in the processes, we then became four members working
individually.
I shared this story to our team leader to support my belief that we do not have a common
understanding of the processes that we have and that is why we need classroom training. He
agreed that we should have a series of knowledge-sharing sessions and added that this will help
him understand the process as well since he is new to the team. Before planning the schedules of
the trainings, I conducted a meeting with my teammates to ensure that we have the same
observation. Lori even mentioned that she wanted to have this kind of training before, but she
didn’t even bother raising her concern because she thought that this is really how things are
being handled in the company. After getting everyone’s approval, we scheduled meetings to plan
the classroom training to be conducted.

Planning
During the scheduled meeting to plan the actions needed to address the unequal
allocation of tasks, solutions were determined. It was agreed that we should add another category
to separate tasks with minimal effort from those monitoring tasks not requiring any manual
intervention. Allocation appears to be unequal because a team member’s name appears more
often, but the assigned tasks include various monitoring tasks.
To ensure that no team member will be overloaded, we agreed to assign weights on each
category. Preparers are expected to exert the most effort in each task; therefore, they will be
given the most weight. Second level reviewer was given the least weight because they are
expected to receive the reports with minimal errors. Table 9 was configured to reflect the new
category.
Rating Definition Preparer Reviewer 1 Reviewer 2

Includes tasks related to the monitoring of
Minimal automated feed files not requiring any manual 0.5
intervention.
Low Tasks to run jobs/scripts in the system. 1
Tasks involving simple analysis of generated
data.
Tasks requiring minimal manual alteration in
Medium the system. 3 2.25 1.2
Tasks that won’t cause any critical issue once
an error is committed.
Complicated tasks involving multiple sub-
processes.
Reports being used by management for
High decision making. 5 3.75 2
Tasks which will cause a domino-effect if
error is committed.
Critical tasks within the system.
Table 9. Task Rating Categories and Weight Allocation

A separate team meeting was conducted to plan classroom training. We need to ensure
that the schedule of the training will not affect any of our deliverables. Planned leaves were
considered as well. As much as possible, we want to have complete attendance every session so
everyone will have the opportunity to clarify their current understanding.
The team has agreed that we use the same tracker in determining which task will require
classroom training. It was finalized that all tasks rated as medium and high will be discussed, the
rest can be part of the training if a member requests for it. Since the first allocation of tasks was
based on the team member’s knowledge and confidence in the process, we used the same
allocation for the facilitator of each topic. We also agreed to have the below standard format in
the discussion to ensure that no details will be missed out:
1. Name of the task/process
2. Purpose in performing the task
3. Frequency and timeline
4. Teams involved / contact person for the data required by the task
5. Detailed process steps
6. Impact of the task to the team / other team
7. Expected output
8. Issues encountered related to the process and resolutions done
9. Review process / key points
The team leader suggested that it will also be the best time to revisit our procedure
documents and work on the revisions accordingly since the deadline of our annual review is set
on the 30th of November. He added that it will be better if it will reflect the information to be
discussed during the training, especially the issues and their corresponding resolutions.
Taking Action
We worked on the allocation of the tasks together. I added another tab in the excel file
and created a table to summarize our total workload based on the weights we have assigned. We
revisited the allocation of tasks per day. As long as the bandwidth permits, interrelated tasks
were assigned to a single team member to minimize waiting time. Afterward, adjustments were
made to balance the workload. We have settled with the allocation shown in table 10.
Allocation
Employee Total Prep Review I Review II
Alyssa 89.50 27.50 36.00 26.00
Rojanie 76.25 50.00 26.25 0.00
Pai 74.25 57.00 17.25 0.00
Lorevyl 72.25 52.00 20.25 0.00
Kenn 37.00 25.00 12.00 0.00
Table 10. Final Task Allocation Summary
We rolled-out the finalized task list and agreed that we’ll comply with the allocation to
ensure that it will serve its purpose. In terms of the ownership of the tasks, the team leader
reiterated that the preparer has the primary responsibility for the tasks being performed. Before a
report is submitted to the reviewer, preparers should ensure that they have maximized their
resources and knowledge to deliver high-quality report.
I sent out email invites to block the team’s calendar for the series of classroom training.
Training rooms were also booked using the same emails and because we are on a mid-shift and
most of the employees in the office observe a morning shift, we did not encounter any
difficulties in booking the rooms. We give each facilitator more than a week to prepare for the
classroom training. The email instructed that process documents should be revisited and
questions should be raised before the classroom training to avoid confusion and ensure smooth
flow of discussion.
Figure 20. Format of Classroom Training Email Invites
Figure 21. Screenshot of Calendar for Classroom Training
The classroom training sessions were conducted every day from September 17, 2019 to
October 8, 2019. We spent a maximum of 1 hour for the team’s peak days and a minimum of 2
hours for non-peak days. A day before the scheduled training, I initiated conversation with the
facilitators to ensure that the processes they are about to discuss are clear to them. We strictly
followed the agreed format of discussion. As much as we want to know how each task or report
is being performed, we also focused on their importance, not only to the team but to the end-
users. Swanson (1995) concluded that effective training must include methodologies to improve
quality and theories should be immediately applied to problems and improvement opportunities
in the workplace. To have an effective training system, we highlighted the previous errors
encountered and how they were resolved. We also spent some time in discussing the possible
improvements we can apply and these practices led to the best practice sharing of the team.
Control: We also decided to add the key points in our existing process documents. This
is to make sure that this critical information was checked by preparers before review and they
were double-checked by the reviewers before sending them out to our managers. The issue log
being maintained was also updated to reflect the issues previously encountered related to the
tasks being discussed.
Evaluation
After fixing the allocation file and ensuring that the tasks were allocated equally to the
team, we did not receive any complains related to the overloading of assigned tasks. The team
strictly adhered to the final file that was rolled-out. We have addressed the cycle 1 findings
where we re-allocate tasks in the middle of the day due to the limited capacity of members
assigned.
The team decided that we’ll permanently use the allocation file and use the weights
assigned in this cycle. Maintaining a file and ensuring that tasks were being allocated equally
through the use of the summary, effectively minimized the erroneous reports being sent out by
the team. We have finally established a tool that will enable people within the team to observe
accuracy, timeliness, and accountability.
The classroom trainings sessions had been productive. All concerns and confusion of
each member were addressed as a team. We were able to align our understanding and
expectations with each report. Key points and checklists were also successfully incorporated into
our process documents. These will be our permanent guide in reviewing our reports before we
send them to the internal reviewers and reviewer’s guide in reviewing reports. Figure 22 shows
the error tracker related to October month-end processes. The team’s accuracy was around 88%
before this action research. After implementing cycles 1 and 2, the team was able to achieve
98.5% accuracy.
Figure 22. Error Tracker After Cycle 1 and Cycle 2 Implementation

According to Mozael (2015), employee with effective training is most likely to have
better opportunities to obtain more knowledge and skills which will enable them to perform tasks
effectively and with better quality. After having a better view and understanding of our
processes, the team was able to think of projects and process improvements with potential time
savings.
The team agreed that refresh will be conducted quarterly to avoid the knowledge gap.
After another round of knowledge sharing, the review 2 function will be fully transferred to our
team leader. This is the part where the team agreed that we can refreeze the current set-up. We’ll
just continue to monitor the errors being encountered by the preparers closely. If the classroom
training will lead to more efficient reporting, we’ll revisit the matrix to reduce unnecessary
reviews to improve the team’s productivity.
The offshore managers noticed the impact of the changes we have implemented. Due to
the satisfaction on the reports being sent to them recently, they initiated to revisit their workload
and identify processes that can be transferred to the team. Last October 10, a call between the
managers and our team leader was conducted to discuss the first process to be migrated:
reconciliation testing. This will be the very first process outside our scope. The team is now
expanding its scope to the QA processes.
The study of Reizer, Brender-Ilan & Sheaffer (2019) concluded that positive emotions
contribute to the positive motivation and performance of an individual. It was not only the
changes implemented in the process which led to the improvement of the outputs, the positive
emotions brought by the strengthened relationship of the team contributed a lot as well.
According to Somech, Desivilya & Lidogoster (2009), the presence of the conflict does not
affect the team alone, how the members approach and manage their conflicts has a major impact
on whether the conflict can be constructive or destructive. Initially, blaming was part of the
team’s culture. We tend to overlook the sources of the errors and choose to remain silent about
the other team members’ mistakes. Upon practicing how we’ll initiate conversations with the
person who committed an error, we were able to communicate issues, best practices, and our
feelings as well. These conversations helped the team improve eventually.
Chapter 7 - Meta-learning After Second Cycle
Content Reflection
The second cycle of this action research taught me that with the level of technological
advancement that we have attained, there are certain situations when traditional approaches are
still applicable. The classroom training helped us address the knowledge gap within the team.
The face-to-face set-up helped us re-align our understanding of the processes and expectations,
and formulate best practices.
After evaluating the impact of this action research, I realized that we have constructed the
appropriate issues for both cycles. Through internal review, we were able to understand the
situation of the team deeper. We saw how the knowledge gap within the team members,
contributed to both the quality of the reports and the relationship of the team. Addressing this by
conducting classroom training which enabled us to view the different perspectives of the team on
various processes and discuss them face-to-face has eliminated the huge gap, not just on the
knowledge but on the relational aspect as well. The classroom training sessions helped us
understand where we were all coming from and enabled us to align our expectations.
The cycle implemented improved the quality of reports being submitted by the team
members internally and externally. It has eliminated multiple reworks which help us increase our
productivity. Offshore managers were pleased, they have transferred more work to us and gave
us the opportunity to grow and expand our scope. From all the positive feedback we have
received and the improvement in the relationship of the team, I can proudly say that this action
research was a success but the team still has a long way to go.
Process Reflection
Among the four of us in the team, I have always been the vocal one. I often initiate and
facilitate discussions. During the classroom training, I opted to give the other members the
chance to speak up and lead the discussion. This motivated my teammates to study the processes
assigned to them and look beyond the step by step processes. The classroom set-up resulted in
productive sessions. Best practices were formulated based on the different approaches shared by
each member. From this, I realized that I shouldn’t discount the knowledge I can gain from
listening to my teammates’ discussions even I am more senior. It also made me realize that
classroom training might be perceived as unproductive and waste of time but in reality, leaving
some deliverables for the meantime to gain and align knowledge will be more beneficial in the
long run because of the reduced time in reworks.
The different frameworks presented by Coghlan & Brannick I have incorporated in my
daily journals helped me understand my way of thinking. I have realized that most of the time, I
fall into the different traps leading to inappropriate intervention or response. I often based my
response on my pre-judgment. Also, the ladder of inference helped me ensure that I do not leave
any part of the data, nor skip any level resulting in biased actions.
I often keep unsaid thoughts to myself, plotting these ideas and comparing them to the
words I’ve said made me realize that I sometimes distort the conversation. I realized that I often
agree to things just to end the conversation though I have other suggestions in my mind. The left-
hand column has thought me to be open and honest about my thoughts as these may lead to
better results.
With all honesty, I used to question La Salle’s decision of having integrative action
research as the final requirement instead of just having our strategic management paper. Going
through the process made me realize that anyone can produce a strategic management paper but
IAR can only be successful if we truly practice the frameworks provided. It helped me improve
my leadership skills by instilling in me that I should follow the appropriate process of thinking
before taking action. I learned to acknowledge the emotions of all the people involved in this
research.
Premise Reflection
One of my assumptions which affected my relationship with the other members of the
team was invalidated by the second cycle. I assumed that some members were committing errors
because they do not have the initiative to think outside the box. These errors were very
frustrating on my part since I deliver most of my work accurately but the errors of the other
members are pulling down the survey results. I realized that the absence of formal training was
one of the contributing factors for these errors.
During one of my conversations with the team leader, he mentioned that we should
always look beyond the errors of the individuals. In cases when a team is facing an issue, we
should not blame the people at once and that we should check the systems and processes in
place. In this situation, I should have not assumed that the team members do not have the
initiative but I should have checked if the current process is faulty instead.
What changed in Me?
The tools used in this action research reminded me to be aware of my thoughts which
might translate into words or actions and to be conscious of how I react to the things I have
observed. Upon realizing that keeping thoughts to myself somehow distorts the flow of
conversation, I’ve started to be more transparent and open during conversations.
Prior to this research, I used to believe that silence will always be the best solution when
conflicts are present within a team. I cannot even initiate a conversation to discuss the errors
committed by someone or even admit that I was offended or hurt by someone. This action
research reminded me of the values of both listening and speaking up. It reminded me of the
importance of communicating my ideas, thoughts and even emotions. After working closely with
my collaborators, I’ve finally learned to confront people.
I used to set myself as a benchmark and expect people to be able to do what I can but by
working with my collaborators for almost half a year, I have accepted that we have different
strengths and weaknesses. Instead of focusing on their weaknesses, we can always maximize
their strengths for the team’s benefit.
Also, one of my key takeaways in working on this action research is on how to deal with
issues and people. It taught me that if we keep on focusing on people’s fault, we’ll just create a
culture of blaming, and if we focus on the system/process’ fault, we’ll be able to improve the
processes. This approach will create a positive environment that can motivate people to perform
better.
Lastly, this action research had a big role in my professional growth. Leading and
implementing changes that lead to various improvements and the even growth of the team caught
my manager’s attention. I’ve also earned the trust and respect of the team during the duration of
the project. Promotion is definitely not one of the many objectives of this action research but I
am grateful that I have grown professionally as well.
What changed in Others?
Before introducing action research and implementing changes within the team, most of
the members were very distant from each other. The collaboration required by the research
helped improve the quality of the relationship that we have. The team learned to be open-minded
and motivated to share ideas during discussion. The improvement in the quality of the
relationship encouraged people to communicate more often. Now, they do not hesitate to ask
questions when not comfortable with their knowledge of the process.
The team’s task allocation served as the team’s basis for accountability. With this,
members of the team learned to take responsibility for the reports and tasks assigned to them.
Preparers now ensure that self-review has been performed before sending their reports to the
reviewers. This has lightened the work of the reviewers too.
The classroom training had a huge impact on the members of the team. The knowledge
they have prior to the sessions have been either validated or corrected. It is now safe to say that
we have common knowledge of our processes. This helped us improve the quality of our outputs.
What changed in the Organization?
This action research gave the team the chance to redeem ourselves. The improvements in
the outputs convinced our offshore managers that we are capable of. With this, new processes
were entrusted and migrated to us. Prior to this research, we cannot visualize and connect the
entire Reconciliation Control process because there are missing pieces caused by the processes
retained by our offshore counterparts. Now that we own the full custody of the system, the team
was able to implement process improvements. We are now gearing towards improving the
team’s productivity.
Also, the team was able to expand in terms of scope. We have piloted the Reconciliation
Testing, which is originally part of the Quality Assurance processes, last October 2019. After
considering all the new processed transferred to the team, we are now in the process of justifying
the need for an additional employee.
If not for this action research, the team will continuously produce poor quality reports
which might lead to the recipients’ inappropriate decisions. The team’s relationship won’t be
improved as well and the culture of blaming will not be given focus. Pawar (2007) mentioned
that in organizations with a culture of blame, a crisis of communication often exists. With the
help of this action research, communication within the team has been improved as well.
Chapter 8 - Extrapolation to a Broader Context and Articulation of Usable Knowledge
This action research used DMAIC as the framework for implementing the changes. It is a
simple yet powerful tool that can effectively guide the improvements to be implemented.
DMAIC framework is often used in a manufacturing set-up but this action research proved that it
can be an effective tool in improving processes in a shared service industry.
During the define stage, the team identified the different driving and restraining forces
and prioritized the largest contributor among the restraining forces. We measured the accuracy of
the reports being sent out prior and after the two cycles of the action research. We then analyze
each task to ensure that we give the appropriate rating and weight. The capability of each
member was analyzed as well. After the three stages, we implemented the changes according to
the plan. Lastly, controls were established to ensure that we sustain the changes that we have
made.
Also, this action research was able to show that to create a blame-free culture within an
organization; we should be process or system-focused rather than people-focused when dealing
with issues. Thinking that an error is caused by a person will give us the tendency to blame
someone while looking at the faulty processes for the resolution that will lead to improvements
and learning. Having a concrete basis for the accountability and responsibility of each team
member will also be of great help in sustaining a blame-free culture.
Most companies deploy virtual training to replace the classroom-type trainings with a
belief that the former is more cost-efficient and more effective. Classroom training were
disregarded and viewed as inefficient and waste of time. However, this action research
demonstrated that in some situations, leaving the production for the meantime and spending
some time to align understanding and knowledge through classroom training can be beneficial. It
may consume some of the productive hours which should have been spent working on the
deliverables, but in the long run, it can lead to time savings by reducing reworks.
The main issue related to the absence of internal review was not an issue prior to
restructuring since our offshore managers were expected to review our outputs. The issue popped
when the team was restructured and no changes were made on the set-up. This event taught us
that when an organization undergoes restructuring, it is important to check on the overall impact
of the changes, especially on the roles and accountabilities of each employee. Analyzing these
factors will successfully bring out the benefits of the restructuring instead of encountering issues
caused by this.
References
Anastasia. (2015, June 18). Major approaches & models of change management. Retrieved
from https://www.cleverism.com/major-approaches-models-of-change-management/
Argyris, C., Putnam, R., McLain Smith, D. (1985). Action science: Promoting learning for action
and change. In Action science: Concepts, methods, and skills for research and
intervention (pp. 36-79). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Retrieved from
http://www.actiondesign.com/assets/pdf/AScha2.pdf
Coghlan, D., & Brannick, T. (2014). Doing action research in your own organization (4th ed.).
London, UK: SAGE Publications.
Houston, S. (2014). Critical realism. In The SAGE encyclopedia of action research, ed.
David Coghlan and Mary Brydon-Miller, 219–222. Los Angeles: Sage.
Hussain, S. T., Lei, S., Akram, T., Haider, M. J., Hussain, S. H., & Ali, M. (2018). Kurt Lewin's
change model: A critical review of the role of leadership and employee involvement in
organizational change. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 3(3), 123-127.
Moran, J. W., & Brightman, B. K. (2000). Leading organizational change. Journal of Workplace
Learning, 12(2), 66-74.
Mozael, B. M. (2015). Impact of training and development programs on employee performance.
International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 5(11), 38-42.
Pawar, M. (2007). Creating and sustaining a blame-free culture: A foundation for process
improvement.The Physician Executive, 33(4), 12-19. Retrieved from http://0-
search.ebscohost.com.lib1000.dlsu.edu.ph/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=256417
52&site=ehost-live. Accessed November 10, 2019.
Reizer, A., Brender-Ilan, Y., & Sheaffer, Z. (2019). Employee motivation, emotions, and
performance: a longitudinal diary study. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 34(6), 415-

428. doi:10.1108/jmp-07-2018-0299
Richter, P. C., & Brühl, R. (2017). Shared service center research: A review of the past, present,
and future. European Management Journal, 35(1), 26-38.
Ross, R. & Kleiner, A. (1994). The ladder of inference. In P. M. Senge, et al., The Fifth
Discipline Fieldbook. Crown Business. Retrieved from
https://www.ucd.ie/t4cms/The%20Ladder%20of%20Inference.pdf
Ross, R. & Kleiner, A. (1994). The Left-Hand Column. In P. M. Senge, et al., The Fifth
Discipline Fieldbook. Crown Business. Retrieved from
https://www.solonline.org/?page=Left_Hand_Column
Schein, C., Jackson, J. C., Frasca, T., & Gray, K. (2019). Praise-many, blame-fewer: A common
(and successful) strategy for attributing responsibility in groups. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General. 2-47. doi:10.1037/xge0000683
Schein, E. (1999a). Intrapsychic processes: ORJI. In Process consultation revisited: Building the
helping relationship, pp. 86-100. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Longman.
Schein, E. (1999b). Active inquiry Active Inquiry and Listening as Status-Equilibrating
Processes. In Process consultation revisited: Building the helping relationship, pp. 86-
100. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Longman.
Shankar, R. (2009). Process improvement using six sigma: A DMAIC guide. ASQ Quality
Press.
Sokovic, M., Pavletic, D., & Kern Pipan, K. (2010). Quality Improvement Methodologies –
PDCA Cycle, RADAR Matrix, DMAIC and DFSS. Journal of Achievements in Materials
and Manufacturing Engineering, 43(1), 476-483.
Somech, A., Desivilya, H. S., & Lidogoster, H. (2009). Team conflict management and team
effectiveness: the effects of task interdependence and team identification. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 30(3), 359-378. doi:10.1002/job.537
Swanson, R. (1995). The quality improvement handbook: Team guide to tools and techniques.
Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Torbert, W. R. & Associates (2004). Action inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Zeynep Aksin, O., & Masini, A. (2007). Effective strategies for internal outsourcing and
offshoring of business services: An empirical investigation. Journal of Operations
Management, 26(2), 239-256.

Appendices
Appendix 1. Research Ethics Checklist F
Appendix 2. Research Ethics General Checklist

Appendix 3. Research Ethics Checklist A

Appendix 4. Informed Consent of Participants

Management and Organization Department
Endorsement Form - Insider Action Research

(IAR) Defense
Establishing Internal Review to Improve the Quality of Outputs in a

Shared Service Company
Submitted by:
Alyssa Mae Acielo
On October 18, 2019 du ring the 1st trimester of AY2019-2020
Has been examined and approved

for presentation to the IAR defense panel.
Signatu re over printed name I Date

University: de Salle

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

University: de Salle

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ffi De La Salle university

This research paper hereto entitled:

a grade of PASSED on November 28' 2019'

Management and Organization Department Ramon V. del Rosario College of Business

Endorsement Form - Insider Action Research

Establishing Internal Review to Improve the Quality of Outputs in a

On October 18, 2019 du ring the 1st trimester of AY2019-2020

Has been examined and approved

Signatu re over printed name I Date

Ramon V. Del Rosario College of Business

Establishing Internal Review to Improve the Quality of Outputs

and to Promote Blame-Free Norms

in a Shared Service Company

An Insider Action Research

Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the

Degree of Master in Business Administration

Alyssa Mae Acielo

November 11, 2019

Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................................. 2

Change Management Strategy .................................................................................................................. 28

Figure 1. Cycle of Blaming and Error within the Team 9

Table 1. Timeline of Huddle Implementation 36

I would like to express my sincerest appreciation to my family, for being my main

showed your support.

throughout my MBA journey.

work and for willingly proofreading my paper.

improving this paper.

my thinking process which made this action research possible.

for understanding that pursuing a master’s degree is one of my priorities.

relationship of the members by establishing a basis of accountability on each task being

as the relationship of the members within the team.

Chapter 1 - Purpose and Rationale

Issue / Problem / Opportunity

this research due to time constraints.

team is being cut-off and the practice creates a cycle of error.

The action Offshore

The team member

Figure 1. Cycle of Blaming and Error within the Team

According to Schein, Jackson & Gray (2019), “responsibility and praiseworthiness or

of the reports and outputs being submitted to the offshore managers.

Significance of Action Research

agreements are expected to be met and surpassed to please the clients.

migrated back to their local entities.

Chapter 2 – Background and Context

action research took place.

processes being migrated from other service centers to Manila.

standardizing, streamlining, and consolidating common business processes in an organization, to

reduce costs through time-saving or enhance services to improve client satisfaction.

Control of the Finance Department.

Figure 2.Company SSC – Organizational Structure

Reconciliation Control Team

Part of Company ABC’s strategy is to build a Reconciliation Control Team based in

across three regions.

through reconciliation testing.

Reconciliation Control Organizational Structure

Figure 3. Manila Reconciliation Control – Old Organizational Structure

timesheet approval, performance evaluation and appropriation of monetary benefits.

Figure 4. Manila Reconciliation Control – New Organizational Structure

processes to be migrated to the team and signing-off of the team’s outputs.

Figure 5. External Stakeholders

Figure 6. The Ultimate Question

the survey results.

Position of the Researcher