Organisational Development can be described as the systematic process to change the culture,

system and behaviour of organisation. It is process that helps in solving organisational problems
and achieving organisational objectives. It works as important mechanism that helps in
impressing the organisation and its employee through planned and established system. It
concentrates on people dimensions like norms, values, attitudes, relationships, organisational
culture etc. The strategies of organisational development focus on enhancement of organisation
effectiveness and solving organisational problems. It includes structural and technological
changes and focuses on working relationships of employees with the organisation.Warran Bennis
has referred to organisational development as a response to change,a complex educational
strategy intended to change the beliefs, attitudes, values, and structure of organisation so that
they can better adapt to new technologies ,marketing and challenges, and the dizzying rate of
change itself. Organisational development is neither “anything done to better an organisation”
nor is it “the training function of the organisation”; it is a particular kind of change process
designed to bring about a particular kind of end result. Organisational development can involve
interventions in the organisation’s “processes,” using behavioural science knowledge as well as
organisational reflection, system improvement, planning, and self-analysis.
Organisational development is the attempt to influence the members of an organisation to expand
their candidness with each other about their views of the organisation and their experience in it,
and to take greater responsibility for their own actions as organisation members. The assumption
behind this phenomena is that when people pursue both of these objectives simultaneously, they
are likely to discover new ways of working together that they experience as more effective for
achieving their own and their shared organisational goals and that when this does not happen,
such activity helps them to understand why and to make meaningful choices about what to do in
light of this understanding.” (Neilsen, 1984).
Cummings and Worley (2002) defined organisational development as “a system wide application
of behavioural science knowledge to the planned development, improvement, and reinforcement
of the strategies, structures and processes that lead to organisation effectiveness”. This definition
emphasises several features that differentiate organisational development from other approaches
to organizational change and improvement, such as management consulting, technological
innovation, operations management, and training and development.

OD is the application of behavioural science to organisational and system issues to align strategy
and capability. It enhances the effectiveness of systems through interventions that enhance
people’s collective capability to achieve shared goals.( Organisational Development (OD) A
Practical Toolkit .page4)

The Three Step-Model of Change (Kurt Lewin )

Background: The Three-Step model of change was proposed by Kurt Lewin in 1947 as one
of the four interrelated elements that comprise his planned approach to change, with the other
three being field theory, action research and group dynamics (Burnes & Cooke, 2012;

Burnes, 2004). It focuses on the conditions/forces that drive or hinder behaviour (Kritsonis,

2005). According to the social scientist, human behaviour is the result of a dynamic balance

of forces working in opposing directions (Burnes, 2004; Kritsonis, 2005). The three-step model
or field theory therefore assumes that a shift in the balance of these forces or conditions towards
the direction of the planned change can bring about desired changes in behaviour (Kritsonis,
2005). In organizational terms, whereas driving forces (e.g. incentives) facilitate change by
pushing employees from their current behaviour towards the planned change, restraining forces
(e.g. group norms) hinder change by pushing employees in the opposite direction (Burnes, 2004;
Kritsonis, 2005). The existing behaviour, problem situation, or status quo is referred to as a
quasi-stationary equilibrium state (Burnes, 2004).

Core components: According to Lewin (1947), a successful change project involves three stages.

The first stage, termed unfreezing, involves reducing the forces maintaining the present
organizational behaviour or status quo; increasing the forces that direct behaviour away from the
present organizational state; or using a combination of both methods.

The second step involves moving the organization to a new level of equilibrium/desired
behaviour (implementing the desired change). It has been found that certain activities are
necessary to implement the first two stages of the change project. These include disconfirming
the validity of the status quo or persuading employees to agree that the existing situation is not
beneficial to them. Also, inducing guilt about the existing situation, and actively engaging
employees and leaders in identifying problems and solutions are important in the unfreezing and
moving stages. In addition, creating psychological safety or reassuring members that the desired
change will be at no psychological cost such as loss or humiliation to them, has been found to
facilitate these two stages of the three-step model (Burnes, 2004; Kritsonis, 2005).

In the third or refreezing step, the planned change is integrated into the organizational values and
traditions in order to stabilize the new quasi-equilibrium state and prevent regression to the
previous problem situation. At this third stage, reinforcement is a critical method for stabilizing
and institutionalizing new behaviours within organizations (Burnes, 2004; Kritsonis, 2005).
Markers of refreezing or a new quasi-equilibrium state include changes in organizational culture,
policies, and practices (Burns, 2006).

2.3.2 Kurt Lewin’s Change Theory

Lewin’s three step model states that organizational change involves a move from one static state
via a progression shift, to another static state. The model is also known as Unfreeze-Change-
Refreeze. This model has been cited by very many authors (like Burke, W. Warner (2011)
Lewis, (2011), McLean, (2006), Ravasi & Schultz, (2006)and Richardo, (2006).

Stage 1: Unfreeze

This stage involves creating the right conditions for change to occur. Unfreezing starts from
making the members understand the organizational crises or vision which motivates them to
change. Unfreezing normally goes through three stages. First of all, there must be enough
information indicating that the current organizational condition is not ideal. Secondly, this
information has to be related to the important goal of the organization, thus elicits members’
anxious feeling. Finally, a solution has to be proposed that will reduce the members’ insecure
feeling and resistance to change. By resisting change, people often attach a sense of identity to
their environment. In this state, alternatives, even beneficial ones, will initially cause discomfort.
The challenge is to move people from this ‘frozen’ state to a ‘change ready’ or ‘unfrozen’ state.

Stage 2: Transition

The transitional ‘journey’ is central to Lewin’s model and at the psychological level, it is
typically a period of confusion. People are aware that the old ways are being challenged, but
there is no clear understanding of the new ways which will replace them. Moving is taking
certain actions to transform the organization to an expected condition. The transition process is
quite complicated. It involves goal setting, support seeking, resource finding, planning and
execution. There are two forms of transitions, namely, problem-solving orientation and vision
orientation. The organization may adapt either one according to their specific situation. As roles
change, a reduced state of efficiency is created, where goals are significantly lowered. The end
goal of this stage is to get people to the ‘unfrozen’ state and keep them there, ready to change.
Stage 3: Refreeze
The end goal of the model is to achieve a ‘refreeze’, re-establishing a new place of stability and
elevate comfort levels by reconnecting people back into their safe, familiar environment.
Freezing is to stabilize the change achieved in the transitional stage. The individual, the
department, and the organization, all have an inertial way of thinking and doing, so that the
change achieved in the transition stage will return to the status quo before, if freezing is not
done. Form new rules, regulate members’ new behavior directly, reinforce appropriate responses,
are all possible ways to internalize the new value or behavior into the organizational culture.
Refreezing takes people from a period of low productivity in the transitional state to that of
organizational effectiveness and sustainable performance (Ravasi & Schultz, 2006).

The Action Research Model

Background: The concept of action research, like the three-step model, is attributed to Kurt
Lewin (1946) as an element of planned change. According to Lewin (1946), action research is an
approach to research which is based on a collaborative problem-solving relationship between the
researcher and client, and which aims at both solving a problem and generating new knowledge.
Thus, in relation to organizations, traditional action research assumes that organizational
problems can be solved with cycles of knowledge gathering and implementation of action
solutions when these dual activities are concurrently and actively engaged in by members of the
organization (Coghlan, & Brannick, 2014). Action research further assumes that the desired
outcomes of research/knowledge in action are solutions to the immediate organizational
problems as well as important learning from intended and unintended outcomes (Coghlan, &
Brannick, 2014). Although various paradigms of action research such as action learning (Revans,
1998) and participatory action research (Chambers,
1994) have been proposed, the traditional concept of the model has been, and continues to be the
dominant organizing model in OD (Burnes & Cooke, 2012; Burnes, 2004; McLean, 2005).
Core components: Action research is a spiral of steps, each of which is composed of a circle of
planning, action, and fact-finding about the result of the action (Coghlan, & Brannick, 2014;
Burnes, 2004). In guiding planned change within organizations, eight main steps are involved:
problem identification, consulting with a behavioural science expert, data gathering and
preliminary diagnosis, feedback to client, joint diagnosis of the problem, joint action planning,
action, and data gathering after action (Cummings & Worley, 2009).

The first of these steps is problem identification. This involves sensing a change situation or
problem within the organization (Coghlan, & Brannick, 2014). Usually, this is done by an
executive or a powerful and influential person within the organization who realises one or more
problems that might be solved with the help of an OD practitioner (Cummings & Worley, 2009).
The second step involves the organization consulting with a behavioural science expert such as
an OD practitioner. During this stage, the expert may share his framework for implementing
planned change with the organization in order to establish an open and collaborative relationship
(Cummings & Worley, 2009; Coghlan, & Brannick, 2014; McLean, 2005).
The third step concerns data gathering and preliminary diagnosis, which, although predominantly
completed by the OD practitioner, is done together with organization members. Here, the OD
practitioner may use process observation, interviews, questionnaires and/or organizational
performance data to gather appropriate and pertinent information about the organization’s
structures and/or operations. This information is then analysed to understand precisely, how the
organization is currently functioning, and to determine the underlying causes and consequences
of the problems within the organization (Cummings & Worley, 2009).
Feedback to key client/group follows the data gathering stage and involves the OD practitioner
feeding back findings of the diagnostic exercise to members of the organization (e.g. employees,
managers, and executives). As highlighted by Cummings and Worley (2009), a balance between
openness about relevant and useful information and confidentiality about sensitive or private data
sources is critical at this stage of the change process. Likewise, the readiness of the organization
for the diagnostic information is crucial to the preceding stages of the change process.
Joint diagnosis of the problem follows feedback to the client. At this stage, the OD practitioner
and organization members jointly agree on what the problem and its causes are, as gaps in
communication during the data gathering stage could result in misdiagnosis. This is a critical
stage within the action research model (Wicks & Reason, 2009), as misdiagnosis or
misunderstanding of the diagnosed problems could bring the change process to a halt or create
resistance to change (Cummings & Worley, 2009).
The joint action planning step precedes the actual action phase and involves the OD practitioner
and the organization members jointly agreeing on the actions or interventions needed to bring
about the desired change. The specific action agreed upon at this stage usually depends on a host
of factors including the diagnosis of the problem.(European Journal of Training and
Development Studies
Vol.2, No.3, pp.29-43, September 2015 ___Published by European Centre for Research Training
and Development UK) (www.eajournals.org) 34 ISSN 2057-5238(Print), ISSN 2057-
5246(Online)
At the action phase, the planned actions are undertaken to bring about desired changes to the
overall organization (e.g. changes in strategic mission and goals, structure, processes and human
resources); at the group level (e.g. changes in culture or behavior of departments or teams); or at
the individual level (e.g. changes in job descriptions and tasks) Cummings and Worley, 2009;
McLean, 2005). The data gathering after action has been taken, is the last step in the model.
Here, the OD practitioner gathers data on the effects of the action and feeds this information
back to the client. This may result in re-diagnosis and new actions, giving this model its cyclical
nature. Organization and the nature of the intervention/actions (Cummings and Worley, 2009;
McLean, 2005).
Action Research Model of Planned Change
The action research model has over the years, made significant contributions to the field of
OD and beyond, through its emphasis on the dual process of academic research/knowledge
creation and problem solving (Coghlan, & Brannick, 2014; Reason & Torbet, 2001). It can
therefore be argued that the concept has played and continues to play a critical role in bridging
the researcher-practitioner gap in the field of OD. In support of the various problem-centred
cases noted by Gallos (2006, pp 141) to have been successfully solved through the application of
the action research model, Burnes and Cooke (2012) stated that the model is the most used
approach by OD practitioners. Furthermore, the action research model is known for its rigour,
and has shown extensive contributions in the area of theory and methodology advancements,
considering that a host of action research forms have been developed form the original concept
(Coghlan, & Brannick, 2014).
Despite its strengths and effectiveness, the action research model has been criticised by other
proponents of the OD field. Cooperrider and Srivastva, as far back as in 1987, criticized the
model and its underlying assumptions as focusing on utilitarian and technical views of
organizations as problems to be solved. They therefore proposed the appreciative inquiry model
as an alternative. According to Gummesson (2000), the action research model is also the most
demanding and extensive method of doing case study research.
The Appreciative Inquiry Model of Planned Change
In relation to the appreciative inquiry model, a key strength has been its focus on appreciating
existing situations to generate new and positive ideas, which have been argued by some in the
field as being the most important force for change (Bush, 2011). The effectiveness of this
approach has also been well documented. It has been found that the appreciative inquiry model
has been instrumental in fostering positive change and growth in both small- and European
Journal of Training and Development Studies Vol.2, No.3, pp.29-43, September 2015
___Published by European Centre for Research Training and Development UK
(www.eajournals.org) ISSN 2057-5238(Print), ISSN 2057-5246(Online)

LEAN SIX SIGMA.

Lean is an approach that seeks to improve flow in the value stream and eliminate waste. It’s
about doing things quickly.
Six Sigma uses a powerful framework (DMAIC) and statistical tools to uncover root causes to
understand and reduce variation. It’s about doing things right (defect free).
A combination of both provides an over-arching improvement philosophy that incorporates
powerful data-driven tools to solve problems and create rapid transformational improvement at
lower cost.
The key is to find the optimal combination of both approaches. For example, adopting the Lean
idea of focusing on what adds value and then using Six Sigma tools to help understand and
reduce variation, when the value stream is agreed.
Lean is an approach that seeks to improve flow in the value stream and eliminate waste. It’s
about doing things quickly.
Six Sigma uses a powerful framework (DMAIC) and statistical tools to uncover root causes to
understand and reduce variation. It’s about doing things right (defect free).
A combination of both provides an over-arching improvement philosophy that incorporates
powerful data-driven tools to solve problems and create rapid transformational improvement at
lower cost.
The key is to find the optimal combination of both approaches. For example, adopting the Lean
idea of focusing on what adds value and then using Six Sigma tools to help understand and
reduce variation, when the value stream is agreed.

This figure below shows the roots of Lean and Six Sigma and how they are converging.

Globally, organisations from many industries, including healthcare are adopting a‘Lean Six
Sigma’ strategy. This is particularly true of organisations that previously focused on Six Sigma.
General Electric, one of the pioneers of Six Sigma, is now incorporating a Lean Six Sigma
approach to achieving rapid transformational change at lower cost.
Lean principles have been enhanced and developed by Toyota to create the Toyota Production
System.
Toyota developed Lean in the 1950s based on the work of Frederick Taylor and W.Edwards
Deming, both industrial engineers. (Note, Toyota does not refer to the word Lean, it uses the
Toyota Production System. See Table 1.)

Stephen Spear’s paper in Harvard Business Review (2005) says “If one asks the question, can the
Toyota Production System be applied in healthcare? The quick answer is yes.”

Industrial engineers invented both Lean techniques and the Six Sigma approach to process
quality.

Lean is a strategic approach to change and improvement. Focusing just on the tools at an
operational level and reducing costs, will not obtain the full benefits.
Lean means “using less to do more” by “determining the value of any given process by
distinguishing value added steps from non value added and eliminating waste so that ultimately
every step adds value to the process” (Miller, 2005).
It is relentlessly focused on the work and by definition the strategy becomes: focus on the work,
learn from it and improve. That’s your strategy. The strategy is simply to learn.
Not understanding Lean and applying tools in isolation leads it to be a cost-reduction exercise.
The main criticisms of Lean are summarised as (Hines et al., 2004):
• lack of consideration for human factors
• lack of strategic perspective (at least until recently)
• relative inability to cope with variability
• Lean means laying off people
• Lean is only for manufacturing
• Lean only works in certain environments – but it is more than manufacturing process design (a
strategic approach).

SIX SIGMA:
Six Sigma is a process improvement methodology developed at Motorola in the 1980’s to reduce
defects in its processes. Its goal was to achieve a level of performance equal to a defect rate of
3.4 defects per million opportunities – this is a virtually defect free environment i.e. Six Sigma
performance.

Similarly, Motorola Inc. Six Sigma methodology emerged in the 1980s from Total Quality
Management, a core element of industrial engineering.

The roots of Six Sigma as a measurement standard can be traced back to Carl Frederick Gauss
(1777-1855) who introduced the concept of the normal curve.
Six Sigma as a measurement standard in product variation can be traced back to the 1920's when
Walter Shewhart showed that three sigma from the mean is the point where a process requires
correction. Many measurement standards (Cpk, Zero Defects, etc.) later came on the scene, but
credit for coining the term "Six Sigma"goes to a Motorola engineer named Bill Smith.

The main criticisms of Six Sigma are summarised as (Hines et al., 2004):
• system interaction not considered – uncoordinated projects
• processes improved independently
• lack of consideration for human factors
• significant infrastructure investment required
• over detailed and complicated for some tasks
• it is the new flavour of the month
• the goal of six sigma (3.4 defects per million opportunities) is absolute – but this is Not always
an appropriate goal and does not need to be adhered to rigorously
• it is only about quality.
Lean and Six Sigma are process based improvement methodologies. Both were developed in
manufacturing environments. Both have proven their effectiveness.
Proponents of both can point to numerous, and dramatic success stories.

Current emerging trends are indicating that integrating the best elements of both methodologies
could help healthcare deliver strategic and operational objectives.

What are the advantages of integrating Lean and Six Sigma?

Integrating Lean and Six Sigma creates a win win situation. The philosophy of Lean provides the
strategy and creates the environment for improving flow and eliminating waste. Empowered
staff are encouraged to continuously improve to create value adding opportunities that otherwise
would not be identified. Six Sigma helps to quantify problems, makes evidence based decisions
(this prevents wasting time on anecdotal evidence), helps to understand and reduce variation and
identifies root causes of variation to find sustainable solutions. Furthermore, it quantifies the
financial benefits and savings. This helps to focus efforts in the areas that offer the most
potential for improvement.
A combination of both can provide the philosophy and the effective tools to solve problems and
create rapid transformational improvement at lower cost. Potentially, this could increase
productivity, improve quality, reduce costs, improve speed, create a safer environment for
patients and staff and exceed customer expectations.

SIMILARITIES OF LEAN AND SIX SIGMA:

Lean and Six Sigma are both customer-focused process improvement methodologies. They
both follow the traditional quality improvement steps:
1. Identify the project
a. Nominate projects
b. Evaluate projects
c. Select a project
d. Ask: Is it quality improvement?
2. Establish the project
a. Prepare a statement of goals
b. Select a team
c. Verify the statement of goals
3. Diagnose the cause
a. Analyse symptoms
b. Confirm or modify statement of goals
c. Formulate theories
d. Test theories
e. Identify root cause(s)
4. Remedy the cause
a. Evaluate alternatives
b. Design remedies
c. Design controls
d. Design for culture
e. Prove effectiveness
f. Implement
5. Hold the gains
a. Design for effective quality controls
b. Foolproof the remedy
c. Audit the controls
6. Replicate results and nominate new projects
a. Replicate the project results
b. Nominate new projects

At one level, both Lean and Six Sigma are improvement methodologies. But as you investigate
further, the contrasting aspects of the two approaches becomes apparent.

HOW LEAN AND SIX SIGMA MODELS DIFFER

Lean is often seen as an efficiency approach which focuses on improving flow in the value
stream and eliminating waste. It is more than this.
Lean is a philosophy, not simply an exercise in eliminating waste. Lean is much more than
episodic Kaizen (rapid improvement) events, it is a continuous improvement approach.

It asks the question, “Why does this process exist at all? What is the value and the value
stream?”

Six Sigma, by contrast, is often considered an effectiveness approach which focuses on the
elimination of defects and reducing variation. It is seen as working best in an environment
where there is variation. Six Sigma starts with “How can we improve this process?” It does not
ask “Why does it exist at all?
Six Sigma is not just statistics, in its best incarnation; one integrates experience, historical,
prospective, and data to make decisions. Six Sigma projects can last from hours to months, the
methodology is not designed to tackle every problem in a set amount of time, but it is designed
so projects do not take any longer than necessary.

Nave (2002) has summarized the differences between the two approaches. See Table
4 – Six Sigma and Lean. Nave argues that it is the organizational culture that makes the
difference about which method is appropriate and that many methods appear similar when their
secondary effects are considered.
The two methodologies follow different approaches. See Table 5.
While Lean and Six Sigma were developed separately, they have similar goals and approaches.
The approaches complement each other.
Lean Six Sigma is a strategic approach to change. It works best when it is used as a mechanism
for achieving strategic improvement goals. Value streams and value systems transcend existing
organizational and departmental boundaries.
The tools of Lean Six Sigma can be utilised for departmental specific improvement
projects but the biggest gains can be made at an organizational or system-wide level.