“The Cylons were created by man. They rebelled. They evolved. They look and feel human. Some are programmed to think they are human. There are many copies. And they have a plan.”
– Season 1 Opening Prologue
Battlestar Galatica, regardless of the series (1978 or 2003), provides a good platform for this technology discussion. In this scenario, the creation (Cylons) turns on the creator (mankind). The Cylons were created to make life easier for humanity. However, Cylons evolved into thinking beings and rebelled against their intended use. Clearly, the inventors had created something without understanding unintended consequences in the socio-technical system.
We now approach the 2nd critical element for effective socio-technical systems, which is technology relevancy. Organizations rush to accelerate their products quicker to their customers. Under this umbrella, industrial designers seek to optimize three elements: (a) tools – involves the material infrastructures, (b) training – relates to human capital matters, and (c) time- considers setting realistic expectations in the operations. Yet, organizations shouldn’t ignore the significance of any soci-technical system integrations. In their article “The Relevancy of Concurrent Engineering in Industrial Technology Programs,” Dr. Radha Balamuralikrishna, Dr. Ragu Athinarayanan, and Dr. Xueshu Song analyze how organizations attempt to maximize operational efficiencies: “It is safe to assume that a hurried implementation of concurrent engineering without careful planning and investment of time has a high probability of backfiring.”
Organizations must understand that technology needs to be relevant as it relates to benefiting the whole socio-technical system. As an engineer, we are taught how to use theory in order to build, design, and operate technical systems, whether mechanical, digital, or otherwise. Sometimes this creates a technical superiority over the other components of this socio-technical system. Vince Adams, a technical manager, agrees, “Engineers are more concerned about the technical aspects of a system. This is what we are taught. Engineers do not want to deal with the social aspects.”
Organizations should gain input from employees to ensure that the organization has not only the best technology for its operations but the right technology. This sharing of information can only come with mutual trust between leaders and follows.
Gary Yukl, author of Leadership in Organizations, notes, “Empowerment is more feasible when there is a high level of mutual trust…Leaders can affect the psychological employment of followers in many ways, and participative leadership and delegation are only two of the relevant behaviors [4].” There have been numerous cases which show that organizations have purchased new technology to solve a problem or to become more efficient when a simple conversation with impacted employees would have produced better results at a lower cost. Therefore, organization should invest their time in identifying relevant technologies for their socio-technical system in a participatory manner.
How do organizations ensure they are placing technologies in their operations that do not conflict or disrupt their processes? When technologies are forced to be used due to external forces (i.e. competitors, suppliers, etc.), what is the best process for introducing these changes to the workers?
© 2010 by Daryl D. Green
Nu Leadership Revolution Blog 
Organizations are taking greater leaps everyday to ensure their quality of work produced, with using technologies. Some organizations rely heavily on the latest technology which can upset their actual human employees. At this point where the world is shifting rapidly to the use of machines it is wise to be prepared for such drastic moves. In such cases it is advised to take into account the lose of workers due to financial cutbacks which companies around the world have experienced. When introducing technology in coexisting with workers it is vital to remember that while technology is faster and more effective it is also important to remember that workers have emotions which are not to be disregarded. It would be a good suggestion if the organization began by slowly introducing the technology while training its workers to do other jobs in order to make sure everyone is provided for and no one is left behind.
Riyam, enlightening points! Can you support them stronger by providing reliable sources?
Implementing the best process for employees to learn technology can be extremely tricky, because workers will sometimes not be open to learning a new technology. Workers may be threatened by the technology because they believe it may be able to be used, or simply not open to change from how they have done their job in the past. Joelle B. Lyons, CPA and developer of training programs at EisnerAmper LLP has developed a four step plan that helps show companies how to implement new technology in a company. The steps of the plan are to decide what technologies should be taught, decide who should teach the technologies, decide how to teach the technology, and train your trainers (1). This seems like four easy things to do but in most instances it is much harder because of employee’s backgrounds as well as their openness to the technology. I believe that these are four steps that should be taken when implementing technology, but of course there are many smaller steps in the process. These four steps set a framework for how technology should be implemented in a company, but much needs to be done within the steps to make the process work.
Resource:
Lyons, Joelle B. “How to Implement an Effective Technology Training Program.” Certified Public Accountant Accounting Firms NJ NY PA Tax Services and Tax Accounting. 2010. Web. 07 Sept. 2010.
I agree with Matt in the fact that it is hard to get change to be fundamentally accepted without the present employees openness to change. I like the quote from Heraclitus who said “Change is the only constant.” John Kotter mentioned there are eight steps to implementing change powerfully and successfully (1). You must create a sense of urgency and start honest discussions. There has to be a powerful working together mentality. The next step would be to create a vision for the approaching change. Include what the future would look like. Communication of the vision must be talked about openly and often. The obstacles must be removed once the path forward is determined. Recognize and reward people who make the change happen and help the people who resist the change to see what the vision of the company is. Reward people when small goals or milestones are met. Build on the change and analyze what went wrong and right after that change. Make the changes part of the company culture. It is hard work to change but if you are sitting still you are falling behind.
Reference:
John Kotter’s book “Leading Change”
I believe there are no guarantees that new technologies will not conflict or disrupt processes. However, when companies are forced to implement new technologies I have found from my own professional experience that a pilot program within a small segment of the company’s population could forecast the possible benefits of new technologies. As Rockwell Automation states, “The data from the pilot program would help determine the viability of the technology, as well as the cost to implement it across the distribution area (1).” For example, if a sales force in the Southeast implements a new targeting program and that program helps them increase market share by targeting the right customer, with the right message and the right frequency then the process and performance has been improved. Once successful with that pilot program then it is likely that other employees across the country will have similar results.
(1) http://www.rockwellautomation.com/solutions/rfid/get/rfidpilot_wp.pdf
http://www.rockwellautomation.com
Jeff, dynamic points!
How do organizations determine the best process for testing new technologies (i.e. piloting)?
Organizations, mine in particular, focus on “need” and ROI (return on investment). For example, the sales force is spending too much time in accounts that do not have high potential for growth or a need to “maintain” current business. Therefore, a tool is needed to identify accounts that will maximize a representative’s time and resources while also giving the company the best ROI possible. So an area of the country is chosen for the pilot program based on the “need” and benefit of technology being tested. Once the pilot program is complete a cost analysis is completed which show on a small scale the cost vs. benefits of implementing new technology. If ROI is favorable then the program is rolled out to the rest of the country starting with a conference call outlining the results of the pilot program and the benefits of implementing the new technology into everyone’s territory. This is followed up by more conference calls that give proper training to each employee and the opportunity to ask questions to an expert on the technology.
It is true to say that change with regards to innovation should be implemented as a slow informational process. If an organization has the trust of its employees for future re-developement, the feedback from employees who have been on the job a while and gained long term understanding of the processes involved in daily operations should enable them to make a smooth transition. Apart from the technological process of constructing new technology along all the borders and different organizations that have to meet when implementing them, it is our job as human beings to make sure everything we put in place is not only safe but meaningful to our ultimate goals. if there is ample training so that people acquire the skills; there are transition periods to ease people in where the new and the old exist side by side; and there is ample communication and humane redeployment if the implementation of new technology costs jobs or creates displacement. These steps should be just what is needed to make sure no processes are over looked and organizations continue to be productive.
Reference:
EDWARD O. LAUMANN, GERALD NADLER, AND BRIGID O’FARRELL “Designing For Technological Change: People In The Process”
Technology advances seems to be the key to success in this society and the upcoming of Generation Y. Organizations need to be ready for the 70 million customers/employers of Gen Y and if the organization is not technologically savvy then Gen Y will not have a part of it. Today’s teens–the biggest bulge since the boomers–may force marketers to toss their old tricks. (1) Gen Y will inherit billions of dollars and every organization will want a piece of it (largest transfer of money in history). However, you can not leave the older generations behind in the dust. It is tricky to achieve a balance whether it be a customer or your worker. I believe it is all about the way in which you introduce the change. My organization recently hired another company to redesign our look and teach a class to all employees to be prepared and informed on the change. This is a good way because it is coming from someone external that you haven’t already formed an opinion about (it could be psycological). If workers do not accept the change then most likely the change will fail.
References:
(1) http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_07/b3616001.htm
When companies are looking for ways to stay competitive in their market, a common solution is to introduce new technology to increase efficiency and effectiveness. This can leave staff feeling anxious about the change and some can be resistant to using the new technology. The best strategy is to carefully plan the role out of the training so that it meets with the least amount of resistance. Ideally you want to deliver the training in small increments e.g. one hour blocks once a week, beginning about 2 months before the launch of the new system. If the new technology is also being used by company outsiders, employees have to be well trained in it before it is implemented. Breaking the content into small modules will prevent staff from information overload. Change can be very stressful for staff so delivering the training in chunks will help to reduce anxiety especially for technically challenged individuals. One hour blocks of content with good support material will help the more tech savvy individuals take the necessary information and run with it and allow those that need more time to absorb the content more time. When determining the sequence of the module roll out, consider what processes or sections of the new technology staff will need and in what order. Roll out the training in order of need. The company should begin with Start with a simple intro to the new system including a walkthrough of the features. Break the main content into three to six modules that provide an overview of a specific section or function. Provide self assessment quizzes and practice exercises that simulate actual business processes to ensure that the key concepts will be retained. The final module can be used for a complicated case study that would require staff to utilize all or many of the tools the technology provides. Corporate technical training that addresses the employee needs as well as the needs of the company or organization will ensure that technological changes are smoothly implemented
Source: pdfcast.org › Technology – Cached
There is not one right way to introduce change into an organization. However, I believe that for management to introduce change there must be a positive relationship between management and their workers. If workers are not confident in their leaders then the project may be another failed attempt at change. Workers expect three things when change is implemented: 1) Effective and sensible planning, 2) Effective decision making, 3) Regular and complete communication. (1)
When an organization has the trust of their workers then the business will beat the 70% failed project statistic.
1. Introducing Change
http://www.dlsweb.rmit.edu.au/toolbox/leadership/toolbox/cm/cm_c03.html
I agreed with Jeff’s idea considering pilot program within a small segment of the company at first. After that, the senior management of the company could forecast the possible benefits of new technologies whether it is feasible and adoptable or not. Especially in the banking industry environment that I am involved in, customers are not always responsive to change and their expectation is low. In this situation, unproved innovative technologies might be reluctant to customers so that it could disrupt an intended process. Benchmarking from successful story in the same line of industry would be also good example in order to apply to own operation process. However, Good motivation encouragement by leader which is based on trust relationship with employee should be surpassing all of these technical methods. In the book of the 7 habits of the highly effective people, trustful communication, mutual trust and understanding can solve conflict, find a better solution and synergize process in the end.
Resource
“7 habits of the highly effective people”, By Stephen R. Covey, 2004
Jae, good ideas!
What is benchmarking and how can organizations leverage with it?
Benchmarking, in relation to the Healthcare Emergency Department industry, specifically relates to the timeliness and processes of getting patients in and out. The available technologies are numerous, and encompass many different areas of the process: computer programs to take customer information, charting and coding programs, instruments to aid the doctors in evaluation, etc. However, when looking at benchmarking the ED process against others in the industry, the most prevalent technology is the recent growth of queuing network modeling. The current methodology captures hospital-specific differences in patient acuity mix, arrival patterns and volumes, and efficiencies of processes in a single computational model. A spreadsheet implementation of the resulting queuing equations is used by managers, in real time, to size ED areas using waiting time and overflow probability as quality of service targets (ScienceDirect.com). Basically, this model outlines the entire process the patient goes through; and, in doing so, reveals any issues the hospital might have in their operational processes. For example, if one section of the queue, such as nurse coding, is taking too long, the bottleneck effect becomes apparent and the rest of the timeliness measures suffer. Once a manager is aware, they can take action towards remedying the issue. As it is in the industry today, this new trending of queuing technology is quickly becoming one of the most valuable tools for emergency departments.
A Multi-Class Queuing Network Analysis Methodology for Improving Hospital Emergency Department Performance. (2008). Science Direct. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VC5-4S1C8H6-2&_user=10&_coverDate=05%2F31%2F2009&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1471650736&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=6b92cace9cee33f4c5b8518a392a38dc&searchtype=a
Organizations most times implement new technology to keep up with external forces or to increase efficiency and effectiveness. Before making this change, significant research should be done to see to it that this will not in any way cripple the organization’s operations. Even though change is inevitable in some cases, how they go about it is vital as this will have a significant impact on the workers and the process. Some people react to change by seeing it as an opportunity for improved conditions, while others fear losing a workplace with which they are comfortable. To alleviate fear of change, managers must acknowledge that the fear is real and then address each person’s specific concerns.
I agree with Chris Hannifin that there should be a “positive relationship between management and their workers.” The cost of not implementing a socio-technical system could cause worker frustration and stifle productivity. For example, a mental health service organization is having problems tracking employee training hours, credentials, background checks, employment dates, positions and supervisors. The human resources support staff have been all but begging for new software to have a “one stop shop” for employee data and ask management for support. The not-for-profit struggles to decrease overhead costs by not hiring more staff and not purchasing the necessary software and current HR staff are overwhelmed with employee data. The HR staff struggle to find enough time to interface with the staff to counsel on benefits and job coaching. Adding technology to streamline HR processes could backfire, eliminating several HR staff functions. But, “providing that this balance is maintained, and that technology doesn’t usurp the human qualities so central to HR, there is much evidence to suggest that emerging technologies could be a perfect partner for human resources – and could even improve the human element.” (“Technology aids the,” 2006)
Technology aids the human touch. (2006, March). Human Resource Management, (1), Retrieved from http://www.hrmreport.com/article/Technology-aids-the-human-touch/
Technology culminates in change. Change is disruptive. therefore technology is disruptive. To a certain extent all technological improvements will generate a disruptive effect, it is an inevitability. Different technologies have different degrees of disruption. The implementation strategy of the new technologies also adds an additional layer to potential disruption. It is important that steps are taken to diminish the effect of the disruption in terms of choosing an appropriate technology and implementation strategy. With each technological improvement there are certain costs of importance: purchasing, learning, time, and costs of reduced production during the integration period. Effective Management of these costs can significantly reduce the pain of utilizing new technology.
When technology is adopted by a firm out of a need to be remain competitive an effective and efficient implementation strategy in critical in mitigating the pain of the advancement while utilizing its benefits as quickly as possible. Learning could be the most difficult obstacle to overcome. A firm could fire its staff that is not familiar with the new technology or teach its existing staff about the new technology. The latter is the most common strategy. The style of the learning strategy in very dependent of the existing firm culture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_technology
http://www.bizhelp24.com/tech/the-pros-and-cons-of-new-technology.html
http://www.eirma.org/f3/local_links.php?action=jump&id=883
http://ezinearticles.com/?Technological-Advances-and-the-Workplace-Skills-Shortage&id=2053849
The greatest asset an organization has is its employees; they are its very essence. With that said, it is absolutely essential for employers to exploit every portion of its talent pool. Far too often, upper level management teams draw on external consulting firms and experts to devise a solution for an ongoing concern when the means for such an endeavor lies within their own workforce. Innovation is a derivative of knowledge. Those familiar with various processes, operations, and procedures are typically the ones to articulate cutting edge ideas.
Who are these people? They are the ones standing on the frontlines of our organizations. Case studies of many of our nation’s most prominent businesses are a testament to this fact. Thus, it can be properly surmised that organizations should turn to their employees first when considerations for new technological implementations are underway. This will provide for early identification of potential conflicts and ensure greater employee buy-in. As Chris Hannifin pointed out, this can prevent project failure as well.
Industry forced technological advances, to the contrary, should be met with employee insight. They can refine processes, identify inevitable disruptions, and/or suggest more efficient solutions. Our book clearly points out that work groups are more effective at managing production problems – given a certain level of autonomy (Jacobs, F., Chase, and R., Aquilano, N., 2009). After all, they are the ones that are ultimately responsible for the day-to-day operations of the business.
Notably, as innovation originates both internally and externally, organizations must be prepared to balance and fully integrate these developments (Neyer, A., Bullinger, A., and Moeslein, K., 2009). However, if possible, they should focus on harnessing and fostering what is in their immediate control – their employees. Through continued positive reinforcement and communication, organizational leaders can be assured that their workforce will be ready and willing to embrace and initiate progression.
References
Jacobs, F., Chase, R., Aquilano, N. (2009). Operations and Supply Management, 189-190. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Neyer, A., Bullinger, A., and Moeslein, K. (2009). Integrating inside and outside innovators: a sociotechnical systems perspective. R&D Management, 39(4), 410-419. Retrieved from the Business Source Premier database.
Sonenshein, S. (2010). WE’RE CHANGING—OR ARE WE? UNTANGLING THE ROLE OF PROGRESSIVE, REGRESSIVE, AND STABILITY NARRATIVES DURING STRATEGIC CHANGE IMPLEMENTATION. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 477-512. Retrieved from the Business Source Premier database.
Technology provides immeasurable benefits when integrated properly, however it can interrupt operations and slow output if proper training and protocols are not implemented. Tenured teachers are used to their old fashion way of teaching; however, a new technology wave has changed their capabilities. Strijbos and Basden wrote that we must “situate technology in the normative context of human and societal aspects.” Classroom teachers are bombarded with new technology teaching aids, and most students can remember being in a classroom and spending the entire class watching the teacher struggle with a machine. Now, teachers are expected to use smart board technology, the internet, and other tools often. But how could this change be possible over a short period of time? Different school systems across the United States began implementing changes, however, the successful ones followed a detailed process and took the time to (1) research new technology teaching aids, (2) pilot new equipment in small areas, (3) train all teachers, principals, and teacher aids, and finally (4) implement the use of new equipment. If technology is implemented under the wrong conditions such as to people that have not been properly trained, the outcome becomes detrimental to the success of your organization.
Strijbos, S. & Basden, A. (2006) Introduction. In Search of an Integrative Vision for Technology: Interdisciplinary Studies in Information Systems (pps. 1-28). New York: Springer.
Tomei, L. (2007) Using a Blended Model to Improve Delivery of Teacher Education Curriculum in Global Settings. Integrating Information and Communications Technologies into the Classroom (pps. 51-61) Hershey: Information Science Publishing.
Decisions that are made with the greatest intent by management to improve the operations efficiency and effectiveness can often have the most dreadful consequences when they are driven by misguided tactics of corporate strategies and possibly worse when involving technology. Mainly because technology can be expensive and difficult to redirect once the trigger is pulled and time is invested. Its best to get it right the first time. We often forget that our operations don’t exist solely to produce cash for the corporation but could be compared to a long standing customer in the eyes of a marketing manager, instead of an operation manager. In other words, we might look at improving operation efficiency through technology by thinking of our operators as our customers. They don’t have to do what we want but will gladly oblige if we align what they want with what we are offering.
We as managers may be under such tremendous pressure to implement better technology than our competition that we simply loose sight of our internal customer, our employee. We then feel self-justified to push our technological idea even if our constituents have voiced their negative opinion. This reality was studied by Bazerman and Moore, “That is, once an individual makes an initial decision to embark on a course of action, negative feedback is dissonant with the initial decision. One way to eliminate this dissonance is to escalate commitment to the initial action in the belief that it will eventually lead to success” (Bazerman 2009). Therefore to combat this self-justification we must humbly seek the insight of those personnel that will own the technology and those we wish to gain from its introduction.
Reference
Bazerman M., and Moore D., (2009) Judgment in managerial decision making. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 7th ed., 103-105.
I agree with Chris and Jill regarding the importance of the manager – employee relationship. Managers must be fully trained on the technology and upper-management must “sale” the idea to middle-management so that they will “sale” it to their employees so they believe this change is positive for them and the company. I agree with Jeff that piloting would be very beneficial before a company spends the time and money on launching any new technology. Once the is being launched, companies should remember that not everyone is tech savvy. Manager must not become frustrated with someone who is not tech savvy and in fact, could set up different training sessions for those who are tech savvy and those who are not and approach the training in two different ways to increase the impact of training the different types of employees.
We must always remember that it is the people, not the technology that drives the business and the company culture. Companies that are introducing a lot of new technologies need to remember to keep it personal. Set down the computer and stop emailing! Have face-to-face interactions with employees on a daily basis so that employees still know their importance to the company.
Reference:
Managing New Technology
http://www.dalecarnegie.com/about_us/press_release.jsp?id=AAAHbsAAEAAAdtsAAA
With changes occurring everyday in technology, processes, management positions and communication channels, change is inevitable in every business organization. The best process for introducing these changes to the workers is to communicate planned changes ahead of time, listening to employees’ ideas and comments, helping employees in the process, creating a temporary team to manage the transition and trying to win the support of powerful influential employees. The earlier employees know about the changes the better they prepare and those who are negatively affected will begin adjusting at early point. Avoid waiting until the new technology is in place but rather work alongside before the old system is completely phased out. Management should make an effort to point out the reason behind the changes, how each person will be affected in the process and after the changes, and the benefits to the workers as a result of this change.
Reference:
Karagara, Amon. Ways of introducing changes in a business setting
http://www.helium.com/items/1823825-introducing-change
The introduction of technology into the workplace can be very alarming – employees are often left anxious upon the arrival of new technology for they worry that their jobs are at stake. Comapnies are always looking for ways to cut costs, and therefore, implementing new technology can increase production efficiency and cut labor costs. Employees begin to feel the pressure and resist learning the new technology resulting in conflict. It is, therefore, recommended that companies utilize appropriate training in order to engage their employees to learn the new technology and make the company more efficient.
Joni Rose, an experienced participant in corporate training and management, confirms three necessary modules needed to ease employees in the process of learning new technology. The first module is the basic introduction of the new techonology which should include a walkthrough, a hands-on session with an instructior, and a one-page summary of the technology’s function. The second module is concerned with employees using the technology in practice excercises and offering comments/suggestions in self-assesment quizzes.
The third and last module suggests that the company implement a case study of how employees have responded to the new technology. The article concludes that if the case study features positive responses from the employees the the transition of implenting the new technology into the corporate setting should yield no suprises.
Rose, Joni. Corporate Technical Training. Suite 101. November 28, 2008.
Organizations should first determine if the technology being contemplated matches the company’s mission and the likely effects to their long-term goals. Companies should define how the product will be used and perform compatibility testing to ensure the technology will work with their existing infrastructure and functional testing to validate required features and eliminate any defects or vulnerabilities. Leaders should ensure that end users needs and perspectives are included in the test plan designs. If an organization has good leaders, they will be able to meet the challenges and overcome resistance to technology implementation. Some companies choose to use champions to help maintain implementation momentum and act as cheerleaders. End users need to be involved and understand the technology and as well as be provided with technical support as needed. Organizations will experience employee buy in if there is a good understanding of the technology and the benefits. Communication is crucial and regular updates with key stakeholders should occur. Organizations should plan for a reasonable amount of time for the employees to become accustomed to the technology. Competitive success can be an outcome of implementing change that results in value such as cost savings or increased revenue and/or productivity.
HEALTHCARE TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION http://www.biohealthmatics.com/technologies/implementation.aspx
The global business world knows that we are living in the technology generation. Everyday new and more advanced technology is being developed, built, invented, and enhanced for two main reasons. (1) Companies must be able to meet or beat their competitors to being technology advanced. (2) Of course, the companies need to make sure they are reaching a more profitable bottom line. It is for this 2 focuses that management will need to make sure that they have the highly educated employees. However, there are three major negative points. (1) When management hire very intelligent, advanced, and techno savvy employees, they will need to be willing to accept their conditions of not working with anything but the most advanced and up dated equipment. (2) The advanced employees will eventually know more about the process, production, or system then the management does, which can cause issues down the road. And (3) competitors will try to persuade the employees to work for them, raising the stakes, such as pay, benefits, and promotions opportunities. The old saying, “The grass always seems greener on the other side of the fence,” will come into play for everyone involved, the management, the companies, and the employees.
References:
Government Executive. 2010. Retrieved on November 11, 2010 from the internet at http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed.
Today’s modern employee is often times expected to have at least a rudimentary grasp of technology. Companies with this expectation of their workforce are often quick to incorporate technology without thinking of the human backlash from introducing a possible disruption. Additionally, they often get caught up in “Technology for Technology’s sake”, without considering: Are we implementing new technology to help, or simply because it’s the trendy thing to do? Have we evaluated what sort of productivity increase it will allow us? Is it the RIGHT technology?
When companies feel forced to use certain technologies due to the market, competitors, they can take a few steps to help ensure success as it pertains to employees. Coyote Communications, an IT consultant firm based in Oregon lists several that are pertinent to the discussion:
– Clearly identifying the benefits of the new system to those who will use it.
– Clear commitment by management to support staff during their learning curve.
– Welcoming and addressing questions and fears
– Attitude of users (many times, users refusal to use new technology comes from factors that have nothing to do with the technology and everything to do with unresolved staff performance issues or already-existing staff/management conflicts)
– Immediate recognition for any staff members new use of technology
http://www.coyotecommunications.com/tech/techbuy.html
We know that organizations have a management structure that determines relationships between functions and positions, and subdivides and delegates roles, and authority to responsibilities carry out defined tasks. So technology helps the development of the organization but at the same time I am scared that he might take people place at work. It is good that employees learn about technology it makes their job easier but they don’t want technology to take their job away from them. In general if the firm has more technology than it competitors that’s always a good strategy. Now days it is very important to implement the technology in your work site because it helps to compete more and you can get more suppliers
In order to keep the disruption to a minimum an organization need to have a technology plan in place. As a part of this plan the company needs to focus on getting all of the bugs out of the system, and making sure the users have the correct attitude about the change. One way to mode users attitudes to acceptance of change is to make sure everyone is well informed about the new technology and how it is going to benefit everyone overall in order to lower the anxiety. Employees need to realized the change is going to make their jobs easier instead of harder.
http://www.coyotecommunications.com/tech/techbuy.html
A company must use all information available to properly install and train all associates on new technology. Many times today in large corporations, employees are scared of any type of change. According to the author of “The role of integrative technology in competitiveness”; “The global business environment requires corporations to use a variety of information and communications technologies in order to coordinate and control all activities in its global operations. In order to be competitive, firms are implementing new technologies such as enterprise resource planning (ERP), ERP II, and radio frequency identification to reduce the cost of doing business by improving operational efficiencies, establish better relationship with their business partners, as well as effectiveness by quickly responding to changes in the marketplace.” Constant cross training must be installed so that all of the employees are comfortable with all new pieces of technology that may come through the facility.
James G. Lollar, Hooshang M. Beheshti, & Brenton J. Whitlow. (2010). The role of integrative technology in competitiveness. Competitiveness Review, 20(5), 423-433. Retrieved November 26, 2010, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 2152222131).
reference
James G. Lollar, Hooshang M. Beheshti, & Brenton J. Whitlow. (2010). The role of integrative technology in competitiveness. Competitiveness Review, 20(5), 423-433. Retrieved November 26, 2010, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 2152222131).
One of the major problems that surround technological implementation is the role of the workers. Problems between the interaction of the worker and the new technology can lead to disruptive effects throughout the firm. A research paper identified that there are several issues that a firm should be considered for the successful implementation of new technologies (Human Issues, 1995). The paper outlines 9 issues ranging from initially introducing technologies through pilot projects to Improving performance evaluation and incentive measures (Human Issues, 1995). Taking these points into consideration, I think that a firm should have a somewhat adaptable strategy in place for novel technology that focuses on efficient and effective adoption by workers.
Human issues in technology implementation. (1995). Retrieved Nov. 27, 10 from bnet: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3081/is_n5_v37/ai_n28667363/