Technostructural Intervention of TRW Systems - Essay Example

?Design and Technology: Technostructural Intervention of TRW Systems Case Study August 28, Design and Technology: Technostructural Intervention of TRW Systems Case Study I. Introduction It is reported that TRW was formed in 1957 by the merger of Thompson Products, Inc. and the Ramo-Woolridge Corporation, Thompson Products, a Cleveland-based manufacturer, or auto and aircraft parts, which had made $500,000 to assist Rimon Ramo and Dean Wooldridge, start the business in 1953. (Thompson, Seher, and Kotter, 1976) Ramo-Wooldridge Corporation experienced quick growth due to its ties to the “accelerating ICBM program that the air force was sponsoring. Following the win on the contract bid for the job of providing technical supervision of the ICBM program it is reported that RW gradually expanded its capability to include advance planning for future ballistic weapons systems and space technology and by providing technical advice to the Air Force.” (Thompson, Seher, and Kotter, 1976) RW was held by many to be a ‘quasi-government’ agency with some of the aerospace industry competitors resenting the opportunities presenting in the audit and examination RW conducted on their operations. RW was due to this relationship with the Air Force prohibited from competition for mainframe and assembly work for the Air Force. TRW made the decision, following the merger of 1959 with Thompson that the hardware ban was too great a liability and moved to free the Systems Group from its limiting relationship with the Air Force. (Thompson, Seher, and Kotter, 1976, paraphrased) Because of the value of the services provided by RW to the Air Force a solution was created calling for a non-profit organization to be created by the Air Force and specifically the Aerospace Corporation. This Corporation is reported to have assumed the “advance planning and broad technical assistance” formerly provided by the Systems Group. (Thompson, Seher, and Kotter, 1976) The transition of this group was difficult at best and involved the shift from ‘customer’ to a ‘competitive organization’. (Thompson, Seher, and Kotter, 1976) The change was related to marketing and manufacturing and contracts that were differentially negotiated. (Thompson, Seher, and Kotter, 1976) The process pricing and billing was ‘cost-plus-fixed-fee-basis” and that changed to what is known as an incentive-based process in which rewards came from excellent performance, delivery dates that were specific and failures resulting in payment of penalties. It is reported that System “thrived in the new competitive arena, winning a number of important contracts.” (Thompson, Seher, and Kotter, 1976) II. Background In 1963 TRW is described being different systems in a matrix organization with functional divisions and the offices for program management (using project interchangeably with program). (paraphrased) TRW Systems Group was headed by the Director, and Sub-headed by the Florida, Houston, San Bernadino, and Washington Operations all of which comprised one subhead of the organization joined by the other subhead being that of the Administration. Team building is a process that was used in the earlier days of TRW. The first team-building meeting was held “offsite” and involved a team development session, which reported that the group “improved its working relationships with manufacturing. The success of this experiment became well known throughout the company.” (Davies-Williams, nd) The matrix of TRW is such that “any one man is a member of many systems simultaneously. He has interfaces with many different groups. In addition, he is continuously moving from one team to another, so they need team development to get the teams off to a fast start.” (Davies-Williams, nd) The process used at TRW Systems is one that can be easily disseminated in the interchange of company representatives after a planning session in which they all express views that differentiate the concerns and consideration of the organization when it enters into a project or process of product creation, sales, distribution and so forth. The interface lab meeting’s success, which involved interaction between the various groups in the organization and stated to be sometimes “characterized by conflict”, is an idea that “took hold.” (Davies-Williams, nd) This type of meeting is educational in nature and identifies problems that exist as well as creating a process in the organization that is solution-focused. Data derived in the form of information served to inform that process. As well, the system focused on career development within the organization. III. Diagnosis The first factor noted in this case study that created a dilemma for TRW Systems is that of ambiguity due to the hierarchical decision-making processes in the organization. The ambiguity in TRW’s matrix has to be dealt with because the situation at TRW is one that is unstructured in nature and one that requires the use of a matrix. Included in the reasons for the need of the matrix is that which states that since R&D type programs are “finite programs” and finite programs are such that they are first created, then the programs live and subsequently die and their death is necessary since they must die or overhead “is out of line.” (Davies-Williams, nd) Projects contain several stages and the same people in the organization are not needed at all stages of a project. The following illustration shows the present structure of the TRW organization and is followed by an illustration showing the structure of the TRW organization in 1963. Figure 1 Present TRW Organization Structure Figure Previous TRW Organization Structure IV. Intervention Plan The work of Imran (2010) reports a study on the effect of employee involvement in Techno-structural interventions in the Textile sector of Pakistan and states that changes is the attempt to alter the employee’s status quo.” (Imran, 2010) When that change happens too quickly it can be very disrupting for the organization’s stakeholders. Technostructural invention is the primary focus in the study reported by Imran who states that technostructural intervention “deals with the restructuring of the organization; the restructuring is in the division of workload of overall organization in to submits for completion of the task effectively.” (Imran, 2010) Restructuring is stated to be such that can be performed “on at least five major factors, environment, organization size, technology, organization strategy, and worldwide operation.” Other major components of technostructural intervention includes that of the involvement of employees. Employee involvement is defined in the work of Glew, et al (1995) as being “on the basis of power, information, knowledge and skills and finally reward.” (Imran, 2010) The final component of intervention is stated to be that of work design and reported is that work design “broadly speaking…is of two types: (1) scientific management which is task oriented; and (2) motivational approach. (Imran, 2010) It is reported that the intervention process or process of change “is not an event of day” but instead may take from months or even a year. According to Imran (2010) changes “must be preceded systematically.” Imran additionally reports that the success ratio for the change increases greatly when the proper model of planned changed is utilized. (2010) Reported as the most often reason that the changes fail is the resistance factor. Overcoming resistance requires “management involvement and support, employee’s participation, information sharing…[and] leadership.” (Imran, 2010) Interventions in the human process are reported to “…deal with the social issues which occurs among the organization members like communication gap, individual differences, conflicts and team issues (Imran, 2010) I. Implementation Actions Interventions are reported to be inclusive of: (1) Human process intervention; (2) Technostructural interventions; (3) Human resources management interventions; and (4) Strategic interventions. (Australian National University, 2011) Human process interventions include the following: (1) T-Groups; (2) Process Consultation and Team Building; and (3) Third-party Interventions (Conflict Resolution) (Australian National University, 2011) Technostructural interventions in clued those related to: (1) Structural design; (2) Employee involvement; and (3) Work design. (Australian National University, 2011) Human resources management interventions include: (1) Reward systems; (2) Career planning and development; and (3) Employee wellness. (Australian National University, 2011) Strategic interventions are inclusive of: (1) Integrated strategic change; (2) Culture change; (3) Organization learning and knowledge management. (Australian National University, 2011) The change management case requires that the change management event occurring in the organization be identified and that one or more change management concepts are applied to critique the process of change. It is necessary to ask the question of what could be done differently in overseeing the process of change. (Australian National University, 2011 , paraphrased) Contingencies that influence the structural design of the organization include those of the: (1) environment; (2) size of the organization; (3) technology; (4) organization goals; and (5) worldwide operations, all of which are lined to the centric element of the organization’s structural design. (Australian National University, 2011) Employee involvement include the following aspects as shown in the following illustration. Figure I. Evaluation Method and Institutionalization Process It is reported that all interventions should be “based on diagnosis” that serves to: (1) to determine whether existing work arrangements can accommodate the required change; (2) to test employees’ willingness to undertake such a change; (3) to calculate the time and effort required to make the change; and (4) to assess probable benefits and associated risks. ( ) Prior to use of an intervention it is necessary to ask the question of whether the intervention has done what it mean to do and how can this be verified? The method of implementation and evaluation involves a diagnosis and a design and implementation of interventions as well as formation of alternative interventions. Implementation of the intervention includes clarification of the intention and planning for the next steps. Implementation feedback includes measures of the intervention and immediate effects and evaluation feedback serve to measure the long-term effects of the intervention. It is stated that implementation feedback serves to track the interventions over time to assess if they are successful in terms of the planned for and desired impact. This involves data collection at regular intervals including conduction of interviews. Evaluation feedback serves to conduct assessment of the overall impact in terms of the intervention’s success or failure and involves data collection in a longitudinal study to assess the effects of the intervention. Russell ( ) reports in the work entitled “Evaluating Performance Interventions: Performance” that technostructural intervention evaluation if it is to have value for the organization must be reliable in nature. Towards this end Russell states that it is necessary to: (1) Use more than one evaluation collection tool; (2) Repeat the evaluation over time; (3) Include qualitative data; Generally speaking the basic evaluation methods and tools that are used in gathering criteria for evaluation are dependent upon the type of information that is going to be evaluated and the intervention type being used. Business results must be identified at the start of the project as well as during the performance analysis phase. During the planning stage the valid business results must be identified and the determination of what data is required for collection in attempting to measure the results. It is reported by Russell that “many performance intervention evaluations fail because data needed to evaluate the intervention successfully is not available after intervention implementation.” ( ) Summary and Conclusion Technostructural interventions are such that related to the organization restructuring initiative as well as restructuring in the division of employee workload of the entire organization for effective completion of tasks. It is possible to restructure the organization upon the bases of the organizational: (1) environment; (2) strategy; (3) size of organization; (4) technology and worldwide operations. Technostructural intervention has been successfully used by TRW and other organizations throughout the world and when proper and appropriate assessment of results is conducted, technostructural intervention offers a sound method of bringing about needed organizational change. Bibliography Bouchard, P. J., & Pellet, L. (2000). Getting your shift together: Making sense of organizational culture and change. Cave Creek, AZ: CCI Press. Buono, A. F., & Bowditch, J. L. (1989). The human side of mergers and acquisitions: Managing collisions between people, cultures, and organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers. Citrome, L. (1997). Layoffs, reductions-in-force, downsizing, rightsizing: The case of a state psychiatric hospital. Administration & Policy in Mental Health, 24(6), 523-533. Cummings, T., & Worley, C. (2001). Organizational development and change (7th ed.). Ohio: South-Western College Publishing. Currie, J. V. (1999). Downsizing, rightsizing, resizing, ... capsizing? Logistics Management & Distribution Report, 38(5), 40. Davies-Williams (nd) Organizational Theory, Design, and Change, Sixth Edition. Davis, E. (1989). Merger frenzy takes its toll: corporate survival tactics help engineers adapt to disruption. EDN, 34(5A), 69-72. Designing Interventions (nd) MGMT2035. National University of Australia. Retrieved from: http://teaching.fec.anu.edu.au/MGMT2035/Interventions_Week%207.pdf Harshbarger, D. (1990). Mergers, acquisitions, and the reformatting of American business. In D. B. Fishman, C. Cherniss, et al. (Eds.). The human side of corporate competitiveness (pp. 102-123). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Hitt, M. A., Keats, B. W., Harback, H. F., & Nixon, R. D. (1994). Rightsizing: building and maintaining strategic leadership and long-term competitiveness. Organizational Dynamics, 23(2), 18-32. Imran, M. (2010) Effect of Employees Involvement in Techno-structural interventions in Textile sector of Pakistan. EABR & ETLC Conference Proceedings. Dublin Ireland. Retrieved from: http://www.cluteinstitute.com/proceedings/2010_Dublin_EABR_Articles/Article%20327.pd Lerner, M. J. (2000). The human costs of organizational downsizing: The irrational effects of the justice motive on managers, dismissed workers, and survivors. In J. H. Harvey, E. D. Miller, et al. (Eds.), Loss and trauma: General and close relationship perspectives (pp. 208-224). Philadelphia: Brunner-Routledge. Matteson, M. T., & Ivancevich, J. M. (1991). Merger and acquisition stress: Fear and uncertainty at mid-career. Prevention in Human Services, 8(1), 139-158. Medvescek, P. (1997). Rightsizing the right way. Medical Laboratory Observer, 29(7), 102-7. Pion, G., Kohout, J., & Wicherski, M. (2000). “Rightsizing” the workforce through training reductions: A good idea? Professional Psychology—Research and Practice, 31(3), 266-271. Robiner, W. N. & Crew, D. P. (2000). Rightsizing the workforce of psychologist in health care: Trends from licensing boards, training programs, and managed care. Professional Psychology—Research and Practice, 31(3), 245-263. Russell, Sally (2006) Evluating Performance Interventions: Performance. American Society for Training and Development, 2006. Infoline Series. Retrieved from: http://books.google.com/books?id=mVnOPYlYf_AC&dq=Technostructural+Intervention&source=gbs_navlinks_s Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R., Roth, G., & Smith, B. (1999). The dance of change: The challenge to sustaining momentum in learning organizations. New York: Doubleday. Winter, R. (nd) Managing Organizational Change. MNGT2035 Change at the Structural Level. Retried from: http://teaching.fec.anu.edu.au/MGMT2035/Technostructural_Week%209.pdf Read More