A gestão da mudança como suporte à inovação

Actualizado em (Terça, 08 Abril 2008 21:11) Escrito por Paulo Santos Domingo, 09 Março 2008 20:35

Em http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm114.htm

Change Management

Developing Support for Innovation

 

TDM Encyclopedia

Victoria Transport Policy Institute

About This Encyclopedia

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Updated August 28, 2007

This chapter discusses various ways to help build support for innovation within organizations. This tends to support TDM implementation.

 

Wit and Humor “Problems cannot be solved at the same level of awareness that created them.” – Albert Einstein

 

 

Description

Change Management refers to activities that support organizational innovation and reform (in this case the organization can be range from a small, private company to a government agency or even an entire community or jurisdiction). It recognizes that organizations often have inertia that must be overcome to create more efficient, responsive and resilient organizations.

 

Change Management requires anticipating and addressing potential obstacles to innovation, and building support by showing individuals that new approaches can ultimately make them better off. It requires managing risk, since change involves uncertainty. It requires including stakeholders in decision-making, and responding to their concerns, since change usually affects many people. It requires correcting distortive institutional incentives that encourage individuals to oppose innovation. All of these changes reflect good management, and are particularly important when implementing fundamental change.

 

Charge requires persistence and redundancy. It is important to treat current opponents as possible future supporters. Most people need to hear a new idea several times before they embrace it. They will first perceive it as somebody else’s idea, but the second or third time they may begin to take ownership and begin to think of it as their idea.

 

It is important to understand how stakeholders perceive innovation and reform, and to frame issues to highlight benefits (TDM Marketing). For example, road and parking pricing can be described as “motorists paying directly rather than indirectly for the facilities they use,” rather than simply a new fee. Similarly, congestion pricing can be described as “a discount for offpeak users” rather than a premium for peak-period users. It is important to show how TDM strategies can help achieve equity objectives, by reducing the need for non-users to subsidize road and parking facilities, and by improving mobility options for non-drivers.

 

Sometimes, when a problem seems particularly difficult it is best to reconsider how the problem is defined, how options are evaluated, and the types of solutions considered. This is called a “paradigm shift,” (Kuhn, 1970). Famous paradigm shifts include Copernicus’s heliocentric model of the universe, Darwin’s theory of evolution, and liberal democracy as a political structure. Common management clichés such as “Work smarter, not harder” and “Think outside the box” are admonitions to consider new approaches to problem solving, i.e., a paradigm shift.

 

Transportation Demand Management represents a type of paradigm shift. Specifically, TDM requires:

 

·       Evaluating transportation system performance based on Accessibility and Mobility, not just vehicle travel.

 

·       Comprehensive Transportation Planning, rather than reductionist decision-making, so the full benefits of TDM can be considered.

 

·       Least Cost Planning, so strategies that increase system efficiency are given equal consideration as strategies that increase system capacity.

 

·       Consideration of Transportation Diversity Benefits.

 

·       Application of Market Reforms to increase overall efficiency and equity.

 

·       Changing the way transportation activity is Measured and solutions Evaluated.

 

·       Institutional and Regulatory reforms.

 

 

Although these strategies are often desirable for many reasons, their benefits tend to be dispersed and long-term, and so are often overlooked or undervalued.

 

TDM implementation often requires a “change agent”, that is, somebody with vision to provide leadership, who is able to articulate the benefits of change and has the resources to overcome the barriers that inevitably develop. This is not for the faint-hearted or easily discouraged: initially such reforms often face exaggerated criticism and fail or are only partially implemented. However, over time, worthwhile reforms take hold and become normal. Once they are well established, people who originally opposed innovations will often claim credit for them!

 

Being a Change Agent Mobility management often involves changing current practices, so proponents must be change agents, that is, people within an organization who provide leadership for change and anticipate and address objections. Change Agents must: ·       Carefully define problems. ·       Expand the range of solutions that are considered in decision-making. ·       Question assumptions used for evaluation. ·       Look at the big picture. Pay attention to context and indirect impacts. ·       Ask, “Are current trends desirable?” “Will they result in an optimal future?” ·       Use comprehensive evaluation techniques that consider all benefits and costs. ·       Make change more attractive than current practices. ·       Use positive statements. Emphasize the benefits of change. ·       Focus on appropriate niches. Don’t try to be everything to everybody. ·       Don’t be afraid to say “no” to bad ideas, but try to offer an alternative which better balances overall objectives. ·       Listen to and educate stakeholders. Develop communication with stakeholders in order to clearly understand the basis of their concerns and how they can be addressed. ·       Don’t give up! Most change requires several efforts before success. Be prepared for obstacles and setbacks.   Innovation often faces resistance and criticism from people who fear change. But if new ideas are fundamentally sound and advocates are persistent, they will often succeed and the same people who previously opposed the change will embrace it and claim it as their own!

 

 

People often assume that what is considered normal must be good. For example, efforts to encourage use of alternative transport modes often face resistance from people who are accustomed to automobile travel and so cannot believe that alternatives could be better. “I just want to be able to drive where I want,” they might argue, implying that such behavior is quite reasonable, even if factors such as population growth, land prices and travel demand are increasing the costs of accommodating additional vehicle traffic and making alternatives more cost effective.

 

Change tends to be difficult because it requires “psychic effort,” that is, it makes people to think about situations that they otherwise can take for granted. For example, a shift from free to Cashed Out parking requires people to think about the value of teach trip and consider use of alternative modes. Similarly, it may seem stressful to try cycling or riding public transit. The first few times people face such a decision it may seem stressful. But over time people become accustomed to new options and conditions, and will often admit that they are better off overall, despite initial opposition. The psychic effort can be reduced by making changes:

• Convenient
• Desirable
• Considered normal

 

 

Consider the first generation of trains, cars and airplanes. To modern eyes they look awkward, and their performance was poor. The first cars were horseless carriages, steered by a tiller rather than a wheel. The first Wright Flyer had various wings, stabilizers, steering panels and reinforcements that seem unnecessarily complex and inefficient; it could only carry one passenger lying on their stomach. But these modest beginnings evolved into modern cars and planes. Similarly, new transportation management programs and policies often seem awkward and inefficient when first introduced, in part because people are unfamiliar with them, and in part because important details may still need to be adjusted to improve performance. Do not let a program be judged too soon, do not be afraid to adjust programs and policies when needed, and continue to maintain a vision of what the program should achieve in the long term.

 

Organizations often require change management to reform standard practices and resources. For example, a planning agency may need to change its zoning codes, development standards, staff training, funding formulas and decision-making processes to effectively implement TDM.

 

Real Versus Token Change Organizations often try to avoid real, fundamental change by implementing token reforms. An important Change Management skill is therefore being able to discern between token and real changes. Here are some indicators of real change. ·    Although it may start small, it is the beginning rather than the end of organizational change. ·    Leaders give it real respect and support. ·    It is integrated into strategic plans and activities. ·    It can grow to have a significant effect on organizational activities.

 

 

Relationships With Other TDM Strategies

Change Management is a necessary foundation for many TDM policies and programs. Least Cost Planning, Change Management, Regulatory Reform, Market Reforms, TDM Programs, Institutional Reforms, and Commute Trip Reduction programs often require Change Management.

 

Wit and Humor A penguin walks into a bar and asks for a cold, tall glass of herring guts and vodka. The bartender, disgusted at the thought, replies, “No, I’m sorry, we don’t serve herring guts.”   The penguin leaves disappointed, and after trying every other drinking establishment in town returns the next day, again asking for herring guts and vodka. The bartender, afraid that the very idea of such a drink will discourage his regular customers, says, “We don’t serve herring guts, and if you come back here asking for them one more time, I’m going to nail your webbed feet to the floor!” The penguin left again disappointed.   The next day the penguin returns and asks, “Do you have some nails?” “No” said the bartender, a little surprised. “Good, then do you have any herring guts that you can mix with vodka?”

 

 

Best Practices

Current management literature provides guidance on change management. Below are some specific recommendations for applying change management to support TDM.

 

·       Work to create a climate that values innovation and supports appropriate risk taking.

 

·       Establish a vision with clear goals, objectives and performance indicators (Transport Planning). This vision provides a reference for describing to stakeholders why change must occur and evaluating progress. Establish a long-range plan, which identifies how individual policy and program reforms support overall goals.

 

·       Develop a team to support change. No single person can implement change alone.

 

·       Communicate a sense of urgency. Most stakeholders will consider change uncomfortable and risky. Without a sense of urgency people tend to avoid change. To motivate change it is necessary to make existing conditions seem more dangerous than the proposed changes. Failure should be defined as continuing with the status quo.

 

·       Educate stakeholders about new policies and programs. Opposition often reflects misunderstandings.

 

·       Don’t be deterred by setbacks. An innovation often fails to be accepted the first time it is introduced, but succeeds with persistence. Do not abandon TDM if a proposal is rejected the first time it is introduced. Instead, continue to educate stakeholders of its value, address objections, and try again.

 

·       Accept risks. Change requires risk. Accept the change that a plan will not turn out as expected. Learn from the experience and try again.

 

·       Emphasize (but don’t exaggerate) benefits. TDM tends to provide multiple benefits, so let stakeholders know about all of them.

 

·       Emphasize different types of benefits to different interest groups. For example, to transportation professionals and businesses, emphasize the economic justifications for TDM, since it is often a cost effective way to address parking and traffic problems. To community groups, emphasize benefits to neighborhood environmental quality, and benefits to non-drivers. To designers and planners, emphasize increased flexibility and support for strategic development objectives.

 

·       Work with stakeholders to identify and address points of opposition.

 

·       Look for small victories. Small victories are the fuel that will keep your team energized for ongoing efforts. Find reasons to celebrate successes whenever you can. Use small victories to build team confidence and momentum.

 

·       Be willing to negotiate and compromise. For example, if there is opposition to priced parking on the grounds that this would impose an excessive financial burden on some lower-income people, offer a certain number of need-based discounts or exemptions.

 

 

Management Clichés Read any management book or magazine and you’ll find numerous clichés concerning the importance of innovative approaches to problem solving. TDM represents the application of innovative management to help solve transportation problems, so these management clichés actually describe what we do! So feel free to use the latest management clichés when you describe TDM – let people know that it represents the cutting edge of good management. See how many of these clichés you can use in one TDM proposal or PowerPoint presentation: “Turn problems into opportunities.” “Think outside the box.” “Challenge the dominant paradigm.” “Make short term decisions that support strategic objectives” “Build partnerships with stakeholders.” “Develop niche markets.” “Value teamwork and cooperation.” “Think holistically” “What is popular is not always right, what is right is not always popular” “Create flexible organizations that reward creativity.” “Provide leadership for change.” “Create win-win solutions” “If change were easy, it wouldn’t be so fun!”

 

 

Examples and Case Studies

 

Collaboration in Transport Planning

TransManagement (2005) describes the following examples of successful cooperation among transportation planning organizations:

 

Montgomery County, Maryland: The availability of federal and state grant funding served as one of many catalysts for the development of a multimodal operations center with centralized computer-aided bus dispatch and traffic signal control. The initial collaboration occurred between two divisions of the Montgomery County Department of Public Works and Transportation that had responsibilities for road operations and transit services. Growing demands to centralize transit operations, an established culture of innovation in traffic management services, the availability of federal and state funding, and strong leadership from top agency management caused this collaboration to occur and to thrive up to the present.

 

New York City: The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in 1986 formed a voluntary partnership of the key operating agencies in the New York region to act as a mechanism to exchange information on construction schedules. This original collaboration has now evolved into a regional information clearinghouse that disseminates system performance information to 16 member agencies and 100 affiliates, as well as serving as a test bed for the application of new technologies. The reasons for forming and the continuing evolution of TRANSCOM were primarily the mutual perception of a regional need (and avoidance of embarrassment when different agency construction projects conflicted) and the perception that information exchange, especially between transportation operators and emergency management agencies, needed a common home. This was especially found to be true in the regional response to the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center, where TRANSCOM was credited with providing important coordination and communication capabilities.

 

Houston, Texas: In 1993, the Texas DOT, the region’s transit authority, the City of Houston, and Harris County formed a partnership called TranStar to serve as a forum for planning, designing, and operating the region’s transportation system. All of the region’s operating and enforcement agencies are part of this collaboration. The catalysts for this effort included a strong transportation professional desire to coordinate transportation system management in Houston, the existence of a regional “champion” in the form of Houston’s mayor, and the existence of a federal demonstration project that required more formal inter-organizational agreements as a prerequisite for receiving program funds.

 

Oregon: In 2000, the Oregon DOT announced the creation of a statewide origin-destination public mode trip-planning information system. In developing this system, the DOT developed a collaborative planning structure with the state’s transit operators and with public health providers who viewed this program as a critical element in reaching out to those in need of health services. The initial catalyst for this effort came from middle-level staff members who thought such a coordinated approach to trip information would be beneficial to the citizens of Oregon.

 

 

References And Resources For More Information

 

Quality Information Center (www.transportation1.org), by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, provides information about quality management programs used by public and private transportation organizations.

 

J. Richard Atkins and Daniel S. turner (2006), “Upgrade Stakeholder Service by Changing your Agency’s Organizational Culture,” ITE Journal, vo. 76, No. 12 (www.ite.org), December 2006, pp. 30-37.

 

R. Beckhard and R.T. Harris (1987), Organizational Transitions: Managing Complex Change, Addison-Wellesley Publishing Company (Reading, MA).

 

BV (2003), The Workplace BUG Guide, Bicycle Victoria (www.bv.com.au).

 

Edward de Bono (1997), LATERAL THINKING: Guaranteed... to Change the Way You Think! Thinking Management Techniques (http://home.pacific.net.sg/~tmt/site_lateral.html).

 

Cambridge Systematics (2003), New Paradigms for Local Public Transportation Organizations, TCRP Report 97, Transit Cooperative Research Program, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org).

 

Doris Kearns Goodwin (1998), Lessons of Presidential Leadership, www.pfdf.org/leaderbooks/121/summer98/goodwin.html).

 

Thomas Kuhn (1970), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago.

 

Todd Litman (1999), “Reinventing Transportation: Exploring the Paradigm Shift Needed to Reconcile Transportation and Sustainability Objectives,” Transportation Research Record 1670, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org), pp. 8-12; available at the Victoria Transport Policy Institute website (www.vtpi.org/reinvent.pdf).

 

Steve Lockwood (2005), “Systems Management and Operations: A Culture Shock,” ITE Journal, Vol. 75, No. 5 (www.ite.org), May 2005, pp. 43-47.

 

P. Lorange, B. Chakravarthy, J. Roos, and A. Van De Ven (1993), Implementing Strategic Processes: Change, Learning, and Cooperation, Blackwell Publishers (www.blackwellpublishers.co.uk).

 

Michael D. Meyer, Sarah Campbell, Dennis Leach and Matt Coogan (2005), “Callaboration: The Key To Success In Transportation,” Transportation Research Record 1924, TRB (www.trb.org), pp. 153-162.

 

Terry Moore (2006), Making Decisions Using An Outcomes-Based Approach To Evaluation Of Alternative Actions, Memo to Portland Metro Council (www.metro.dst.or.us/library_docs/trans/criteria_outcomesapp.pdf), 11 April 2006.

 

Northwestern University Office of Change Management (www.northwestern.edu/change-management/ol.htm).

 

Quality Information Center (http://quality.transportation.org) is an AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) sponsored website to enable state highway and transportation agencies and other organizations involved in transportation to share information about their continuous quality improvement activities.

 

Office of Operations (www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov) is a U.S. Federal Highway Administration department dedicated to promoting roadway operations and management.

 

John Poorman (2005), “A Holistic Transportation Planning Framework For Management And Operations,” ITE Journal, Vol. 75, No. 5 (www.ite.org), May 2005, pp. 28-32.

 

TransManagement (2005), From Handshake to Compact: Guidance to Foster Collaborative, Multimodal Decision Making, TCRP Report 106 and NCHRP Report 536, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org); available at http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_536.pdf.

 

TRB (2001), Managing Change in State Departments of Transportation, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, NCHRP 20-24(14), Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org).

Maior produtividade na administração pública

Actualizado em (Terça, 30 Novembro 1999 00:00) Escrito por Paulo Santos Domingo, 09 Março 2008 20:12

The_Productive_Time_Improvement_Journey

Neste artigo em http://www.ogc.gov.uk/documents/The_Productive_Time_Improvement_Journey(1).pdf pode-se ver várias dicas e exemplos.

 

a)  How does someone currently spend their time?
There are two ways to work smarter
•  spend less time not doing “the right things”
•  get more done in the time available

b) How slick is our service delivery?

 

How could we get there?

1.  Reduce variation in performance - “moving everyone to ‘good’”

2.  Improving the ‘frontier’ performances - “moving what ‘good’ looks like”

3.  Changing the landscape

 

I’m convinced this is a good idea - how do we start?
The first steps are:
1.  Know why you want to change things - for example:
•  “so that our staff can deliver services to more people”;
•  “so that we can increase the amount of service we deliver to our users”;
•  “so that we can release resources to take on more / different activities”.
2.  Set your ambition - and make it measurable - for example:
•  “to remove half of the time our people spend on non-core activities”;
•  “to reduce the overall time our customers wait for us to deliver the service to them by at least half”;
•  “to reduce the number of time we make rrors in processing forms by 90%”.
Then decide on the approach you are going to use - the second rticle in this series (“tools & techniques”) explains some of the main options, and describes the circumstances in which each is appropriate.

Melhoria dos processos vs. automatização

Actualizado em (Domingo, 09 Março 2008 20:05) Escrito por Paulo Santos Domingo, 09 Março 2008 20:02

Em http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/eai/madgreek/archives/bpm-process-improvement-vs-process-automation-22451

BPM: Process Improvement vs. Process Automation

Another lesson learned I encountered recently is to clearly define the intentions of your BPM projects. There is a huge difference between attempting to improve processes versus automating processes. First let's discuss the pros and cons of each:

Process Automating in a BPM world

Pros

• Quick wins (unless processes are extremely complex)
• Less culture shock
• Reduce human error
• Start collecting process metrics baselines to analyze future process improvements
• Reduce paper, fax, emails, etc.

Cons

• Only small efficiency gains are realized
• Automating non-value add processes
• Missed opportunity to optimize work flow
• May never get a chance to improve processes

Process Improvement in a BPM world

Pros

• Reduce or eliminate waste
• Potential huge return on investment
• Improve employee performance and customer experience
• Reduce complexity of systems
• Financial justification of process steps

Cons

• Potential culture shock issues
• Requires more executive support
• More expensive to implement
• Requires more attention to change management

Like any other large enterprise initiative, a company must have a vision or a roadmap. Some companies may want to achieve financial benefits as soon as possible. For those companies, they should embark on a process improvement initiative right out of the gates. This means that the company must invest in training the business on process improvements with tools like lean sigma, TQM, and others or bring in talent to assess and recommend new processes.

Other companies may want to ease into the culture transformation and start with process automation. This allows the employees to get familiar with the BPM tools and to start collecting data about the current processes (time, costs, bottlenecks, etc.). This information can lead to process improvements down the road. The downside to this approach is that it will take the company much longer to reach the "promised land" of having streamlined and cost effective processes. The real danger that I see is other priorities may take precedence and the company may never get the opportunity to eliminate waste. In my opinion, process automation by itself may not justify the expense of purchasing a BPMS tool. The real value is in process improvement.

Fellow ITToolbox blogger Vladimir Stojanovski wrote a good post on this topic several months ago called Synergies of Process Improvement and Process Automation. In his post he pointed out some interesting statistics that I will mention here:

• Process automation resulting from technology investments yields 2 percent productivity gains. These are the types of projects where technology is used to make old, tired, and broken processes run faster.

• Process improvement through re-engineering yields 8 percent in productivity gains.

• When done together, productivity improvements from both process automation and improvement yield 20 percent in productivity gains.

Mark Smith wrote a post back in 2005 called Process Automation Can Undermine Performance. The key take away from this post is his closing statement:

To succeed at BPM, assess for success, think beyond automation and make performance improvement your number-one process improvement goal.

My point is, the real value in leveraging BPM is process improvements. Process improvement combined with process automation is a powerful combination that can bring real value to an enterprise. Process automation by itself is nice, but it still allows waste to exist in the organization. But whatever your BPM strategy is, make sure it is clear to all team members what the direction is. If some people have an expectation that the goal is automation, while others think the goal is improvement, you will create a lot of unnecessary conflicts.

Benchmarking de produtividade em desenvolvimento de software

Actualizado em (Domingo, 09 Março 2008 20:00) Escrito por Paulo Santos Domingo, 09 Março 2008 19:51

Em  http://www.ksharp.com/documents/isern-98-08.pdf  podem ver um artigo que faz Benchmarking de produtividade em desenvolvimento de software baseado em mais de 200 casos reais.

Outro artigo em http://www.datamax-france.com/ieee00.pdf

Produtividade em Investigação científica

Actualizado em (Terça, 30 Novembro 1999 00:00) Escrito por Paulo Santos Domingo, 09 Março 2008 19:47

Ver o artigo em ftp://ftp.cordis.lu/pub/improving/docs/ser_conf_bench_barre.pdf

Produtividade em Hospitais

Actualizado em (Domingo, 09 Março 2008 19:55) Escrito por Paulo Santos Domingo, 09 Março 2008 19:40

O benchmarking como uma medida essencial na produtividade dos hospitais é apontado no site http://www.bradyinc.com/Tip_of_the_Week_(04_17_06).html

Department productivity benchmarking is one of the most powerful and versatile tools available to progressive hospital management teams. Here are just a few of its uses.

• As a Cost Management Tool: Labor costs remain the largest single component of any hospital's expense budget. Managing labor costs is important for both financial and moral stewardship reasons. Department productivity benchmarking is an important first step in identifying and resolving excessive labor costs.

• As an Overall Performance Screening Tool: Staffing variances are a marker for potential performance issues that go far beyond excessive labor costs. Departments frequently "staff up" to overcome operating problems caused by everything from organizational cultural issues and resource inadequacies to work process factors. Departments that consume an abnormal amount of labor resources because of these factors are more often than not also struggling with quality, physician and patient satisfaction, employee relations and community image issues. Done correctly, department productivity benchmarking will help identify those departments in the most need of management action.

• As a Management Data Set Validation Method: More than sixty percent of U.S. hospitals are managing with inadequate or inaccurate management information. A systematic review of data, performed during the course of the benchmarking process, will identify errors in the management data set leading to better decisions.

• As a Change Management Resource:  Is your team in the process of building a new organizational culture to meet today's challenges? Productivity benchmarking serves as an essential component of any serious management initiative to transform the classic hospital culture. Hospitals that  routinely and systematically benchmark department productivity are communicating powerful performance expectations with action as well as words.

Outro artigo encontra-se em http://provider.thomsonhealthcare.com/uploadedFiles/01_06_MTM.pdf