Analytical tools and frameworks for organisational analysis Hazel Hall and Kathy Buckner School of Computing

1. Analytical tools and frameworks for organisational analysisHazel Hall and Kathy BucknerSchool of Computing

2. Set reading Coghlan & Brannick (2001) Chapter 8

3. Lecture content Today we focus on tools and techniques for organisational analysis through a consideration of: Introductory material based on set reading (HH) purpose and output of frameworks frameworks that (1) deploy systems thinking, (2) focus on change, (3) consider levels of complexity for scoping selection of frameworks Activity theory example (KB) Actor-network theory example (HH) NB there is a wide range of tools and techniques for research in general. Some (or elements of some) are more applicable to action research than others. We are considering examples here.

4. 1. Introductory material based on set reading Purpose and output of frameworks Frameworks that deploy systems thinking focus on change consider levels of complexity for scoping Selection of frameworks

5. Purpose of frameworks Frameworks help make sense of data collected, and thus of phenomena (e.g. organisational dynamics) observed act as a tool for diagnosis and thus aid the processes of: acquiring knowledge reflection action for change

6. Output of frameworks Frameworks provide you with a means of formatting your findings e.g., as a graphical representation of the organisation under investigation In using a framework you are encouraged to (re)organise your data understand what it is that your data represent present your findings in a format that is understandable to others � the representation can be used as a short-cut to shared understanding (akin to boundary objects)

7. Systems thinking as a framework Premise of systems thinking An organisation is a whole, and the whole comprises inter-related and independent parts, such as: planning control structural technological behavioural Phenomena are the emergent property of the inter-related whole. �The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.� Synergy.

8. �Cause and effect� V �dynamic complexity� Systems thinking encourages you to examine elements of the organisation meshes of causes and effects patterns of interaction to discover �dynamic complexity� (Senge, 1990).

9. Systemic questioning McCaughan & Palmer (1994) advise the use of �systemic questioning� to discover how a system functions.

10. Systemic questioning McCaughan & Palmer (1994) advise the use of �systemic questioning� to discover how a system functions.

11. Value of systems thinking approach Anticipated output indications of issues that help account for what is happening within the environment under investigation basis on which to build interpretations starting point for exploring possible interventions Format of output graphics, e.g. pictures, diagrams of what has been observed form of creative problem solving as patterns emerge discussion of graphic may lead to explanation (alien to �spectator� research)

12. Value of systems thinking approach Anticipated output indications of issues that help account for what is happening within the environment under investigation basis on which to build interpretations starting point for exploring possible interventions Format of output graphics, e.g. pictures, diagrams of what has been observed form of creative problem solving as patterns emerge discussion of graphic may lead to explanation (alien to �traditional� research)

13. Change as a key theme in action research Change is an anticipated goal of any action research project Particular themes of interest � how change is resisted e.g. denied e.g. dodged, diverted

14. Frameworks that focus on change Antecedent Lewin (1966): change process has three steps being motivated to change changing making the change survive and work Influence felt in the work of: French & Bell (1999) on theory and practice of organisational development Coghlan (1994) on organisational change as a process of re-education

15. �Orders� of change Focus of work that investigates change may fall on First order change: the need for specific change is identified and made. Second order change: in cases where the first order change was not sufficient, a second step is made. Third order change: akin to organisational transformation - particularly with regards to attitudes and culture - where the organisation discovers the need to question its assumptions and outlooks, and recognises need to implement new ones.

16. Consideration of levels of complexity: scope Levels of behaviour within organisations individual group, face to face team inter-group organisational Complexities � examples individuals and their relationships to the organisation individuals within teams and their relationships to one another teams and teams total organisation and the external environment PLUS combinations of the above

17. Levels of complexity and the researcher Research approach can be designed to take into account the levels of complexity Need to be conscious of your position in this set-up as a member of the organisation under investigation e.g., you may discover others keen to avoid engagement in your work, devising means of dodging change

18. Selection of a framework � Weisbord (1988) Weisbord (1988) advises that you select a framework that: is simple fits with the organisation�s values and will focus on what is important to the organisation will generate output that can be recognised by the organisation and validate individuals� experience, whilst shedding new light on issues under discussion can point to practical steps that the organisation can take to act upon the findings of the research

19. Selection of a framework � Burke (1994) Burke (1994) advises that you select a framework that: you understand fits the organisation, in particular is comprehensive enough to cover relevant aspects of the organisation will make sense to organisational members supports data collection and interpretation in a comprehensive manner, i.e. will not miss out important information Burke also cautions against becoming �trapped� by your framework � know its strengths and weaknesses

20. Selection of a framework � Burke (1994) Burke (1994) advises that you select a framework that: you understand fits the organisation, in particular is comprehensive enough to cover relevant aspects of the organisation will make sense to organisational members supports data collection and interpretation in a comprehensive manner, i.e. will not miss out important information Burke also cautions against becoming �trapped� by your framework � know its strengths and weaknesses

21. 2. Activity theory example Please see Kathy Buckner�s slides

22. 3. Actor-network theory example Background Optimism associated with the development of systems to promote knowledge sharing is misguided. Examples in the literature go back to 1980s. �Culture� often takes the blame. Case study organisation wanted explanations as to why the efforts of its knowledge management staff to promote information systems for knowledge sharing were sub-optimal.

23. Actor-network theory as a tool of analysis History Developed in 1980s Michel Callon and Bruno Latour Key concepts Non-humans, as well as humans, are actors Relationships between actors shift as they compete for organisational resources, from tangible, e.g. office space, to intangible, e.g. corporate attention Actor-networks grow through successful �translation� Actor-networks diminish/disintegrate when ties in the network loosen

24. Relevance of actor-network theory to this case The organisation was understood as a mesh of competing actor-networks. The success/failure of corporate initiatives was suspected to be related to the degree to which particular groups enhanced or diminished their organisational power-base. Service delivery could be examined with reference to historical and social context of the organisation. The approach provided opportunities to reflect, learn, act.

25. Focus of researcher and system Researcher

26. Actors in the organisation

27. Analysis 1995

28. Analysis 1998

29. Analysis 2001

30. Some findings Central position of intranet, and its proximity to KM as a concept, account for confusion over what KM represented in the organisation. Distance between policy documentation and �ordinary� staff explained lack of engagement with KM, and what it implied in terms of behaviours. Ties between KM staff in business units and �ordinary� staff strengthened over time at the expense of their relationship with the central KM team and the main tool of the KM implementation. As a result their commitment to KM weakened, as did that of their �ordinary� colleagues.

31. Characteristics of action research? Research process Data collected were reorganised Graphical representations were created Learning and reflection in the creation of the representations Representations understandable to staff concerned Research outcomes Acquisition of knowledge Reflection possible Action possible � prompted interest in CoPs, social network analysis in 2001

32. References Burke, W.W. (1994). Diagnostic models for organizational development. In A. Howard and associates (Eds.), Diagnosis for organizational change (pp. 53-84). New York: Guildford. Coghlan, D. (1994). Change as re-education: Lewin revisited. Organization Development Journal, 12(4), 1-8. French, W. & Bell, C. (1999). Organizational development: behavioral science interventions for organization improvement (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Lewin, K. (1966). Group decision and social change. In E. Maccoby, T. Newcomb & E. Hartley (Eds.). Readings in social psychology (2nd ed.) (pp. 197-211). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. McCaughan, N. & Palmer, B. (1994). Systems thinking for harassed managers. London: Karnac. Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline. New York: Doubleday. Weisbord, M.R. (1988). Towards a new practice theory of OD: notes on snap-shooting and movie making. In W.A. Pasmore & R.W. Woodman (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development volume 2 (pp. 59-96). Greenwich, CT: JAL.