Three theories to help overcome change resistance in service design implementation

Community member post by Ricardo Martins

ricardo-martins
Ricardo Martins (biography)

How can service designers improve implementation of their projects and overcome resistance to change?

According to the Service Design Network, “Service design is the activity of planning and organizing people, infrastructure, communication and material components of a service to improve its quality and the interaction between the service provider and its customers. The purpose of service design methodologies is to design according to the needs of customers or participants, so that the service is user-friendly, competitive and relevant.”

Although service designers have hundreds of methods to map the current state of a service, to elicit requirements from stakeholders and to propose new processes for services, they often spend little effort on implementing the ideas they generate. Many service designers ignore the implementation challenges they will face, especially resistance to change.

Resistance to change is a well-known phenomenon. It is natural to resist modifications since they can mean more risks, upsetting the established balance and emotional stress. Another, sometimes hidden, set of factors causing organizational inertia is politics, conflict of interests and power struggles.

Three theories from the organizational change literature can shed some light on these factors. They are also helpful when thinking about research implementation.

Frames to overcome symbolic and political obstacles to change

Four useful perspectives or ‘frames’ were described by Bolman and Deal (1991), who argued that change must take into account not only structural and human frames, but also political and symbolic ones.

  • Structural Frame — Refers to the skeleton or the bones of an organisation. It focuses on how to organise and structure groups to improve performance.
  • Human Resources Frame — Refers to individuals and how they interact with each other to meet their needs and desires.
  • Political Frame — Considers the organisation from the standpoint of power and conflict, as well as the dangers presented by external factors.
  • Symbolic Frame — This involves the culture of the organisation and how meaning is made.

Power games

Crozier (1979) highlighted that when a new change is implemented in service design, new rules and regulations are created in the organisation. This may result in new skills becoming essential, new political alliances and new local coalitions. Relevant areas of uncertainty and control of resources are redistributed. There may be resistance amongst people who feel they are losing power. There, therefore, needs to be an understanding of what happens to people’s personal interests and their power.

Networks of humans and resources

Latour’s actor-network theory (2005) draws attention to social relations that come into play in a change process. These are the effects of networks that include humans as well as objects, money, machines and the environment. The changes that service designers generate on such resources affect the people who control them, so that consideration must be given to modifications to resources and their links to the rest of the social system.

Conclusion

The value of these theories is to offer conceptual tools to deal with politics and power struggles. The political interests of those involved in an organisation being changed are usually hidden. This complicates the work of service designers who may create projects based on assumptions that do not always reflect the real circumstances in the organisation. Theories about power and social relations can help designers more effectively implement their projects.

What do you think? Are there other theories that you have found to be helpful?

To find out more:
Martins, R. (2016). Increasing the Success of Service Design Implementation: Bridging the gap between design and change management. Touchpoint, 8, 2. Online:  https://www.service-design-network.org/touchpoint/touchpoint-8-2-design-thinking-and-service-design-doing/increasing-the-success-of-service-design-implementation

References:
Bolman, L. and Deal, T. (1991). Reframing organizations. Jossey-Bass Publishers: San Francisco, United States of America.

Crozier, M. (1979). On ne change pas la société par décret. Grasset: Paris, France.

Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford University Press: Oxford, United Kingdom.

Biography: Ricardo Martins is a Brazilian business consultant, specializing in business intelligence, process innovation, project management and branding. He is also a marketing and design professor at the Federal University of Parana in Brazil. He has received Samsung Design Awards and Apple Creativity Awards. His areas of interest are service design implementation, process re-engineering, change management and power games.

Successful implementation demands a great liaison person: Nine tips on making it work

Community member post by Abby Haynes on behalf of CIPHER (Centre for Informing Policy in Health with Evidence from Research)

cipher-group
CIPHER Sub-group (Participants)

When external providers deliver a complex program in an organisation, it is crucial that someone from that organisation—a liaison person—gives ‘insider’ advice and acts as a link between their organisation and the program providers. What are the characteristics to look for in filling that role? And how can liaison people best be supported?

Here we describe what we learnt about the pivotal role of liaison people during the implementation of SPIRIT (Supporting health with Research: an Intervention Trial). SPIRIT was a novel multi-component trial designed to increase individual and organisational capacity to use research in policymaking. Six Sydney-based health policy organisations took part – each nominating a member of their staff to coordinate the implementation of SPIRIT in their organisation. These liaison people turned out to be far more than administrators – they had a profound impact not only on how the program was implemented, but on perceptions, engagement and participation across their organisations.

We provide nine tips for identifying and supporting liaison people.

1. Champions: The liaison person must believe that the program is worthwhile

The ideal liaison person is:

  • a champion: someone who genuinely believes in the program and advocates for it energetically
  • an opinion leader: someone with informal organisational influence
  • a boundary spanner: someone well-connected in their workplace who can also communicate effectively with the program providers.

We found that where liaison people held an indifferent or negative view of the program they unintentionally undermined it, while those who were enthusiastic amplified others’ enthusiasm. So genuine support for the program is more important than influence or connections.

2. Credibility: The liaison person should be an authentic advocate for the program

Colleagues judged the suitability and effectiveness of their liaison person in terms of how well they modelled and espoused research-informed policymaking. This suggests that for a liaison person to be a credible champion they must be perceived as someone who believes in what they are saying and knows what they are talking about.

3. Connections: The liaison person should have sound cross-organisational knowledge and networks

The program was more creatively tailored and integrated, and better attuned to each organisation’s professional development expectations, when their liaison person consulted with colleagues and advised the program providers. Liaison people’s ability to act as intermediaries required them to have (or be able to rapidly acquire) knowledge about multiple aspects of their organisation. Broad connections across the organisation ensured that their championing efforts were not restricted to local contexts, but it was their nuanced understanding of diverse organisational needs and perspectives that enabled them to represent and respond to their colleagues so effectively.

4. Social skills: The liaison person should have good interpersonal and communication skills

The quality of connections was as important as the quantity for supporting organisational understanding and engagement. Our most effective liaison people were persuasive, approachable and well-liked: people are more inclined to do things for people they like. Adaptability and project management skills were also vital.

5. Support: Organisational leaders need to visibly back the liaison person as well as the program

Strong, visible support from managers assured liaison people that their efforts – even when they verged on ‘nagging’ – were seen as reasonable and warranted. Colleagues confirmed that evident support from above increased the liaison person’s authority and demonstrated they were acting on behalf of management.

6. Incentives: If possible, the liaison person role should be incentivised within the organisation

Liaison people were more enthusiastic about the implementation when they benefited professionally from the role. This included building tasks into performance indicators and increased organisational status or exposure. But incentives should not pressure liaison people to coerce participation.

7. Clear expectations: Organisations need clear upfront guidance about the liaison person role

The liaison people in our study had strikingly different perceptions of their role (eg., as event organisers, project managers, collaborators, connectors, translators and integrators). Liaison people and their managers needed to see the role as skilled facilitation rather than merely administration, and to understand its key attributes, responsibilities, support needs and likely time commitments. The program providers must describe these clearly and realistically.

8. Flexibility: The liaison role can be interpreted by each organisation

Providing it does not compromise implementation fidelity, it may help to take a flexible approach to the liaison role, so that core objectives and tasks are specified but the strategies for achieving them are developed locally. For example, organisations might prefer to divide the role between two members of staff: one taking responsibility for administration and another for creative and strategic decisions.

9. Collaboration: The program providers should work with the liaison person in planning and problem-solving

Where liaison people shared insider knowledge, harnessed local communication channels and made suggestions for increasing the benefits of the program, activities were assessed by the program providers and participants as more attractive and useful. This suggests that working with liaison people as program development partners, rather than as conduits, could increase our ability to develop fit-for-purpose programs that respond sensitively to local conditions.

In conclusion, we found that the liaison person can ‘make or break’ a program. Does this resonate with your experience?

To find out more:
Haynes, A., Butow, P., Brennan, S., Williamson, A., Redman, S., Carter, S., Gallego, G. and Rudge, S. (2016). The pivotal position of ‘liaison people’: Facilitating a research utilisation intervention in policy agencies. Evidence and Policy. Open access online (DOI): 10.1332/174426416X14817284217163

The CIPHER Investigators. (2014). Supporting policy in health with research: An intervention trial (SPIRIT) – protocol for a stepped wedge trial. BMJ Open, 4. Online (DOI): 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005293

Participants: This blog post was written by Abby Haynes on behalf of CIPHER (Centre for Informing Policy in Health with Evidence from Research). Members of CIPHER involved in the research on ‘liaison people’ were: Abby Haynes (Sax Institute and University of Sydney), Sally Redman (Sax Institute), Anna Williamson (Sax Institute), Sue Brennan (Australasian Cochrane Centre, Monash University), Gisselle Gallego (University of Notre Dame), Stacy Carter (University of Sydney), Sian Rudge (Sax Institute) and Phyllis Butow (University of Sydney).

cipher-group
Photo (L-R): Anna Williamson, Sally Redman, Sian Rudge and Abby Haynes. Missing CIPHER Sub-group members: Sue Brennan, Gisselle Gallego, Stacy Carter and Phyllis Butow.

Ten lessons from a transdisciplinary PhD program in sustainable development

Community member post by Marianne Penker

marianne-penker
Marianne Penker (biography)

Should a doctoral student specialise in transdisciplinary sustainable development research? What are the opportunities and challenges associated with undertaking a program that requires research integration and implementation?

At the University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna in Austria, teams of PhD-students and academic supervisors collaborated with representatives from regions, cities, public authorities, businesses or civil society to solve pressing and often wicked sustainability problems. We learnt the following ten lessons. Continue reading

Building a better bridge: The role of research mediators

Community member post by Jessica Shaw

jessica-shaw
Jessica Shaw (biography) (Photograph by Chris Soldt)

What, and who, are research mediators? And are they the key to linking research with policy and practice?

There has long existed a gap, perhaps a chasm, between the worlds of research and of policy and practice. All too often, policymakers and practitioners do not use research evidence when making key decisions, while researchers design entire programs of research without a complete understanding of the needs of those on the ground doing the work. Because of this divide, we’re left wondering—how do we get individuals to use the most relevant research findings when making personal healthcare decisions? how do we get school officials to choose evidence-based curriculum? how do we get legislators to develop scientifically-sound policies? Continue reading

Citizen science and participatory modeling

Community member post by Rebecca Jordan and Steven Gray

Rebecca Jordan (biography)

As investigators who engage the public in both modeling and research endeavors we address two major questions: Does citizen science have a place within the participatory modeling research community? And does participatory modeling have a place in the citizen science research community?

Let us start with definitions. Citizen science has been defined in many ways, but we will keep the definition simple. Citizen science refers to endeavors where persons who do not consider themselves scientific experts work with those who do consider themselves experts (around a specific issue) to address an authentic research question. Continue reading

Six actions to mobilise knowledge in complex systems

Community member post by Bev J. Holmes and Allan Best

bev-holmes_original
Bev J. Holmes (biography)

What are the practical implications of mobilising knowledge in complex systems? How can the rules, regulations, incentives and long-entrenched power structures of a system be changed so that knowledge mobilisation is maximized?

allan-best
Allan Best (biography)

We propose six interdependent actions, briefly described below, undertaken at two levels, by those who: (1) are managing specific knowledge mobilization initiatives (initiative managers), and (2) are in a position to make the environment more receptive to change (key influencers). These people may not necessarily be involved in specific initiatives. Continue reading