Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Structural and Evolutionary Approach to Change Management

  • Published:
Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Organizational change management is concerned with realizing strategies using models, methods and prescriptions that seek to guide the three key elements of strategic management process: strategic analysis (what is our current configuration?), strategic choice (what is our desired configuration?) and strategic implementation (how to realize the desired configuration?). To address these strategic management issues, this paper presents an evolutionary and structural approach that uses a classification technique (cladistics) and a method from algebraic topology (q-analysis) to identify and understand different organizational configurations, along with the relationships and connectivity (change route) between a current and desired configuration. A simple example data set is used to introduce and describe the cladistic and q-analysis methods. This is followed by an application of the technique to a data set from the automotive assembly industry.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aldrich, H. (1986), “A Population Perspective on Organizations,” Acta universitatis upaliensis.

  • Aldrich, H. (1999), Organizations Evolving. Sage.

  • Alpander, G.G. and C.R. Lee (1995), “Culture, Strategy and Teamwork: The Keys to Organizational Change,” The Journal of Management Development, 14(8).

  • Atkin, R.H. (1980), “The Methodology of q-Analysis: How to Study Corporations by Using Concepts of Connectivity,” Management Decision, 18(7), 380–390.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baum, J. (1999), “Organizational Ecology,” in S.R. Clegg and C. Hardy (Eds.) Studying Organization—Theory and Method, London: Sage Publication, pp. 71–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D.T. (1969), “Variation and Selective Retention in Socio-Cultural Evolution,” General Systems, 14, 69–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cullen, I.G. (1983), “iq-Analysis and the Theory of Social Scientific Knowledge,” Environment and Planning B-Planning & Design, 10(4), 393–401.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dimaggio, P.J. and W.W. Powell (1983), “The Iron Case Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields,” American Sociological Review, 88, 147–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farris, J.S. (1988), Henning86, Version 1.5, Program and Documentation. Port Jefferson Station, New York.

  • Felsenstein, J. (1989), PHYLIP—Phylogeny Inference Package (Version 3.5), Cladistic. Vol. 5, pp. 164–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felsenstein, J. (1993), PHYLIP—Phylogeny Inference Package (Version 3.5c), Distributed by the author, Department of Genetics, University of Washington, Seattle.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez, P., I.P. McCarthy and T. Rakotobe-Joel (2001), “An Evolutionary Approach to Benchmarking,” Benchmarking an International Journal, 8(4), 281–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gell-Mann, M. (1994), The Quark and the Jaguar—Adventures in the Simple and the Complex. W.H. Freeman and Company, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, R. and C.R. Hinings (1996), “Understanding Radical Change Bringing Together the Old and New Institutionalism,” Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1022–1054.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grover, V. (1999), “From Business Reengineering to Business Process Change Management: A Longitudinal Study of Trends and Practices,” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 46(1).

  • Hannan, M.T. and J.H. Freeman (1989), Organizational Ecology. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henning, W. (1966), Phylogenetic Systematics. University of Illinois Press, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinings, C.R. and R. Greenwood (1988), The Dynamics of Strategic Change. Oxford, Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Houshmand, A. and T. Rakotobe-Joel (2001), “Integrating the Supply Chain Management and Continuous Quality Improvement Approaches by Use of the Integrated Supply Chain Structural Analysis Method,” Quality Engineering, 13(1), 91–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, T.L. and W.J. Yan (1998), “q-Analysis Techniques for Studying Communication Content,” Quality & Quantity, 32(1), 93–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, J.H. (1981), “The q-Analysis of Road Traffic Systems,” Environment and Planning B-Planning & Design, 8(2), 141–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, J.H. (1990), “Expert q-Analysis,” Environment and Planning B-Planning & Design, 17(2), 221–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, J.H. (2000), “Coherence Theory in the Science of Complexity,” in I. McCarthy and T. Rakotobe-Joel (Eds.) Complex Systems and Complexity in Industry. University ofWarwick, Coventry, United Kingdom ISBN: 0-902683-50-0.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leseure, M. (2002), “Manufacturing Strategies in the Hand Tool Industry,” International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 20(12), 1475–1487.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipscomb, D. (1998), Basics of Cladistic Analysis. George Washington University, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lord, A., S. Lunn, I. Price and P. Stephenson (2002), “Emergent Behaviour in a New Market: Facilities Management in the UK,” in G. Frizelle and H. Richards (Eds.) “Tackling Industrial Complexity: The Ideas that Make a Difference.” University of Cambridge, pp. 357–372.

  • Macgill, S.M. (1985), “Structural-Analysis of Social Data—A Guide to Ho Galois Lattice,” Environment and Planning A, 17(8), 1089–1109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macgill, S.M. and T. Springer (1986), “q-Analysis and Transport—A False Start,” Transportation Research Part B-Methodological, 20(4), 271–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, I.P. (1995), “Manufacturing Classification: Lessons from Organizational Systematics and Biological Taxonomy,” The International Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management—Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 6(6), 37–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, I.P. and M. Leseure (1997), “Achieving Manufacturing Competitiveness Using Cladistics Classification,” Proceedings of the 10th AOM Conference on Design Tools and Methods in Industrial Engineering. University of Florence.

  • McCarthy, I.P., M. Leseure, K. Ridgway and N. Fieller (1997), “Building a Manufacturing Cladogram,” International Journal of Technology Management, 13(3), 269–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, I.P. and K. Ridgway (2000), “Cladistics: A Taxonomy for Manufacturing Organizations,” The International Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management—Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 11(1), 16–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, I.P., M. Leseure, K. Ridgway and N. Fieller (2000), “Organizational Diversity, Evolution and Cladistic Classifications,” The International Journal of Management Science—OMEGA, 28, 77–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKelvey, B. (1978), “Organizational Systematics: Taxonomic Lessons from Biology,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 20, 509–525.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKelvey, B. (1982), Organizational Systematics. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKelvey, B. (1994), “Evolution and Organizational Science,” in J.A.C. Baum and J.V. Singh (Eds.) Evolutionary Dynamics of Organizations. Oxford University Press, pp. 314–326.

  • Mintzberg, H. (1979), The Structuring of Organizations. Prentice Hall Engelwood Cliffs, N.J.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, C. (1997), “The Influence of Institutional and Task Environment Relationships on Organizational Performance: The Canadian Construction Industry,” Journal of Management Studies, 34(1), 99–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pugh, D.S., D.J. Hickson and C.R. Hinings (1969), “An Empirical Taxonomy of Structures ofWork Organizations,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 14, 115–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rakotobe-Joel, T. (2000), “Integrating the Supply Chain Management and Continuous Quality Improvement Approaches for Organizational Effectiveness,” Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Cincinnati, OH.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rakotobe-Joel, T. (2001), “Using Connectivity Theory to Optimize & Measure Supply Chain Performances,” Presented at the Annual Conference of the Institute for Operations Research and Management Science (Miami, FL).

  • Redman, T. and J. Grieves (1999), “Managing Strategic Change Through TQM: Learning from Failure,” New Technology, Work and Employment, 14(1), 45–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W.R. (1995), Institutions and Organizations. Sage, Thousand Oaks, California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seidman, S.B. (1983), “Rethinking Backcloth and Traffic—Perspectives From Social Work,” Environment and Planning B-Planning & Design, 10(4), 439–456.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shermann, H. and R. Schultz (1998), Open Boundaries; Creating Business Innovation Through Complexity. Perseus Books, Reading Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegal, W., A.H. Church, M. Javitch, J. Waclawski, S. Burd, M. Bazigos, T.-F. Yang, K. Anderson-Rudolph and W.W. Burke (1996), “Understanding the Management of Change an Overview of Managers' Perspectives and Assumptions in the 1990s,” Journal of Organizational Change Management, 9(6), 54–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh, S. (2002), “Improving the Quality of a Supply Chain Through Integrated Supply Chain Structural Analysis: A Case Study,” Proceedings of the Decisions Science Institute Annual Meeting. San Diego, CA.

  • Sneath, P. and R. Sokal (1973), Numerical Taxonomy, the Principles and Practices of Numerical Classification. Freeman.

  • Stacey, R.D. (1990), Dynamic Strategy for the 1990's: Balancing Opportunism and Business Planning. Kogan Page, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stacey, R.D. (1991), The ChaosFrontier; Creative Strategic Control for Business. Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stacey, R.D. (1996), Complexity and Creativity in Organizations. Berrett-Koehler.

  • Stacey, R.D. (2000), Strategic Management and Organization Dynamics. Pitman, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swofford, D.L. (1998), PAUP—Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony, (Version Beta 8.0). Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swofford, D.L. and W.P. Maddison (1987), “Reconstructing Ancestral States under Wagner Parsimony,” Mathematical Bioscience, 87, 199–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tranfield, D. and J. Smith (2002), “Organisation Designs for Teamworking,” International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 22(5), 471–491.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich, D. and B. McKelvey (1990), “General Organizational Classification: An Empirical Test Using the United States and Japanese Electronics Industries,” Organization Science, 1, 99–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiley, E.O., D. Siegel-Causey, D.R. Brooks and V.A. Funk (1991), The Compleat Cladist:APrimer of Phylogenetic Procedures. The University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Womack, J.P., D.T. Jones and D. Roos (1990), The Machine that Changed the World. Maxwell MacMillan International, New York, NY.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Administration and Business, Ramapo College of New Jersey, 505 Ramapo Valley Road, Mahwah, NJ, 07430, USA

    Thierry Rakotobe-Joel

  2. Faculty of Business Administration, Simon Fraser University, 515 West Hastings Street, Vancouver, BC, V6B 5K3, Canada

    Ian P. McCarthy

  3. Cranfield School of Management, Cranfield University, Cranfield, Bedford, MK43 0AL, UK

    David Tranfield

Authors
  1. Thierry Rakotobe-Joel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ian P. McCarthy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David Tranfield
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rakotobe-Joel, T., McCarthy, I.P. & Tranfield, D. A Structural and Evolutionary Approach to Change Management. Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory 8, 337–364 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025420718857

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025420718857

Search

Navigation