Case Study
Issues of Project Change Management: Project
Managing an EFQM.EM Improvement Strategy
Introduction
Many companies in recent years have embarked enthusiastically on improvement
strategies, some under the heading of the European Foundation for Quality
Management Excellence Model (EFQM.EM).
However, sometimes there are associated problematic issues in how the
implementation is planned and/or in how it is applied. This was the case in a
traditional construction company. A year after the start of the deployment process an
investigative group from the company's parent company concluded that the following:
 A re-focusing was required in order to improve the fundamentals of the
business operations. The first priority was to establish effective disciplines and
controls within each organisational function.
 The change initiative had already consumed a great deal of management energy,
time and resources. Further, any additional time and effort in trying to further
deploy EFQM.EM should be put off until priority issues have been addressed.
 This marked the end of the EFQM.EM improvement strategy. The background to
the investigative group’s conclusions is very informative and is presented below.
Major issues of concern
Early initiatives directed at improving corporate performance had been very successful,
but the Executive Board realised that progress had stalled, and that new ideas were
required to maintain its ‘sustainable competitive advantage’.
A decision was taken by the board that a study team of senior managers should be set
up to examine the company's approach to ‘organisational excellence’ via the EFQM.EM,
and to report in 3 months’ time. The study group concluded that there was no easy
solution to attaining corporate excellence and hence a ‘sustainable competitive
advantage’. Although previous one-off initiatives had yielded some benefits, several
examples were quoted where an inconsistent and uncertain project management
approach still existed:
Surveying and Engineering: Principles and Practice
© 2008 by P. Watson, D. Gibson, N. Hanney, P. Rushworth, S. Smith, C. Walsh & G. Workman
 While management preached the importance of organisational learning,
competitive advantage and corporate excellence, production output was always
given operational priority.
 New techniques such as Self Assessment and Statistical Process Control (SPC)
had been introduced in a disparate way. Some organisational operational
sections did use SPC but they did not know why or what to do with the results,
or how the results linked to the EFQM.EM.
The study group also identified the following issues as those requiring to be addressed
as a matter of organisational urgency. These encapsulated the need to:
 Review the role of on site managers/supervisors
 Improve staff discipline and morale, and improve control on new working
practices
 Address as a vital activity the company's poor quality record
 Improve its poor organisational communication links
The study group further stressed the importance of the EFQM.EM as a means of
committing everyone in the company by means of a single management philosophy,
which encompassed an integrated human resource plan. It was recommended that the
Board should seek advice. This culminated in the appointment of external consultants
to assist in EFQM.EM deployment.
The time from presentation of the internal study group report (which the Board
accepted) to taking the decision to go ahead with the improvement strategy had been
less than 4 months. It is important to note some of the key aspects:
The managing director was totally convinced that acceptance of the EFQM.EM
improvement strategy was the only way forward for the company. He became very
enthusiastic; when it was stressed that the improvement strategy could take 3 years
to deliver the advocated benefits, he replied: ‘we do things quicker here; we'll do it in
a year’.

While some senior staff shared the chairman's enthusiasm, others were totally
unconvinced and very lukewarm to some of the key issues.
 The need to address some of the key issues noted above as a matter of urgency
was quickly forgotten in the rush to make progress on EFQM.EM deployment.
Surveying and Engineering: Principles and Practice
© 2008 by P. Watson, D. Gibson, N. Hanney, P. Rushworth, S. Smith, C. Walsh & G. Workman
Some of the seeds of failure had thus already been sown, no attempt had been made
to produce and follow a project management implementation plan (project life-cycle
approach).
Change management
Changes were to be implemented by means of a structure of committees and teams
each with clearly defined roles, related to the EFQM.EM.
The new system reflected the existing organisational structure, so that the transition
from process operational improvement being a 'special' activity to becoming a normal
way of organisational practice was managed by the same group of staff. The following
is a brief summary of the structure:
 The steering team was the Board (senior managers) and its task was to lead the
implementation of EFQM.EM by supporting the work of all the other staff groups.
 Local steering committees were set up to manage the improvement activities in
each function and on each site. They were chaired by a member of the boards
steering team.
 The statistical methods office provided technical support in the areas of training,
self-assessment, key performance indicators, behavioural science and statistics
and worked on the structure and systems of the change process, all linked to
the EFQM.EM.
 Process improvement leaders related to the EFQM.EM criteria were statistical
facilitators who helped members of project teams and local steering committees.
 Culture change teams identified areas where conflict existed with the existing
management culture. The team’s recommendations were championed by a
Board member.
 While this was the theory of the new management system, the reality was
somewhat different. The lack of commitment of some managers meant that
most of the steering committees were ineffectual and that some of the culture
change teams never even got started.
The change process
Training and education
This was to be applied via a 'cascade' method, with external consultants and Statistical
Methods Office training the Board who in turn trained their direct reporters and so on
Surveying and Engineering: Principles and Practice
© 2008 by P. Watson, D. Gibson, N. Hanney, P. Rushworth, S. Smith, C. Walsh & G. Workman
down the organisational hierarchy. This method proved to be successful. However,
training in philosophy was not followed up with training in how to use various tools
and techniques until some months later, thus key data was not available for
incorporation into the RADAR model.
Philosophy training emphasised attitude changes, like driving out fear and treating
everyone as if they want to do a good job for the organisation, but no new systems
were put in place to support the new corporate philosophy. Also, without tools and
techniques, nothing could be done with philosophy training alone, in its drive for
organisational improvement.
Quality planning and focus
This was intended to cover main priorities and all measures of quality improvement,
integration initiatives such as SPC and improvement of management processes such
as reward systems and staff appraisal.
This whole area proved to be a most problematic activity; this was because existing
processes were in many cases not under adequate control, and there was little that
could be done to improve them. Major changes in systems and procedures were
required. Appraisal systems were addressed by replacing management by objectives
and target numbers by a less specific 'process improvement plan', which managers
never really fully understood. Key issues related to work measurement were never
addressed; thus this impeded the application of RADAR.
Management culture and style
This covered corporate and functional missions, values and corporate goals, and work
on the recommendations of the culture change teams. While the corporate mission,
values and goals were well handled, functional efforts depended very much on the
attitude of the Board members concerned.
Failure of the culture change teams referred to above led to a lack of progress in
defining operating philosophy and in reviewing company policies. This had an adverse
impact upon the areas of processes, partnerships, people and key performance results,
all associated with the EFQM.EM.
Communication and recognition
These aspects were handled by means of open discussions, management briefs,
company newsletters and handouts to explain the new philosophies. A conscious effort
was made to try and ensure that all staff fully understood what was happening within
the company and also why the EFQM.EM was being applied.
Surveying and Engineering: Principles and Practice
© 2008 by P. Watson, D. Gibson, N. Hanney, P. Rushworth, S. Smith, C. Walsh & G. Workman
The intention was that these three key phases would evolve and thus no specific end
date was set.
Questions
1. Comment upon the company’s approach to the deployment of an improvement
strategy based upon the EFQM.EM.
2. What lessons may be learnt from this company’s experience that other
organisations can learn from, within the context of this chapter?
The key points are summarised (for the reader) below.
Key points
 No real planning for the deployment project was undertaken and the company
failed to fully appreciate that organisational change processes consume a vast
quantity of time, resources and organisational energy. Cultural change is a
problematic activity and is best managed via an incremental change process.
People have an inbuilt resistance to change and change carries with it an
associated opportunity cost. Cultural shift has to be managed, resourced and
lead by senior corporate staff.
 The company did not really move towards fully addressing the EFQM.EM criteria.
Therefore, what appeared to be fundamental changes achieved at first were, in
fact, only superficial. They had not become part of the company's cultural
dynamic, accepted work practices and group norms.
 Organisational structure should follow strategy yet the company persisted with
the same structure. This proved to be a formidable barrier to the improvement
change process. Therefore, gains made were not sustainable.
 The concept of a 'learning organisation' was not established. This is because the
fundamental rationale for becoming a learning organisation had not been fully
understood by Senior Management. The concepts of single-, double- and tripleloop learning were not understood, and therefore triple-loop learning and
RADAR were not applied as part of the company’s improvement plans. Senior
managers could not articulate the rationale of learning from previous experience
to all organisational employees, clients and suppliers, and this accounts for the
'inconsistent and uncertain management approach'.
Surveying and Engineering: Principles and Practice
© 2008 by P. Watson, D. Gibson, N. Hanney, P. Rushworth, S. Smith, C. Walsh & G. Workman
 The company still focused on increased productivity and short-term gain, and
EFQM.EM deployment is a long-term strategic objective. Thus, the realisation
that the change process was a long-term strategic development and not a
short-term tactical approach was not fully understood or resourced by senior
management.
 Self Assessment, SPC and other tools had been introduced without a coherent
strategy. This 'disparate' application of analytical tools only served to confuse
staff. They were not linked to the key performance Results of EFQM.EM and its
RADAR.
 Senior managers failed to appreciate the key management functions that
managers engage in. There was no evaluation of management effectiveness or
any attempt at self-assessment of staff or the EFQM.EM.
Lessons to be learnt by companies
Senior managers should develop an implementational strategy and the project
manager should devise a deployment programme; remember the essential
requirement for effective control is having a starting point, that is, a Plan. The plan
has to be communicated to all stakeholders.
They failed to realise that consultation has two vital components. First, it is an
information-gathering process to inform decision making. Secondly, it has a
psychological component: if people are consulted and allowed to contribute, they are
more likely to support the initiative as they feel part of the change process.
EFQM.EM may require many organisational changes, and therefore people
commitment is vital. Remember it is vital to avoid coalitions of resistance in change
management projects.
Having developed and communicated a change process plan, senior managers (or the
project manager) needed to ensure that all necessary resources and training
programmes had been allocated/setup. These should be monitored to ensure that they
are adequate for implementation. These aspects could all be incorporated under the
EFQM.EM and RADAR.
The key aspects for successful deployment are
 Planning the implementational process, providing sufficient and appropriate
resources required for the success of the project.
Surveying and Engineering: Principles and Practice
© 2008 by P. Watson, D. Gibson, N. Hanney, P. Rushworth, S. Smith, C. Walsh & G. Workman
 Setting up or maintaining all necessary support systems, embraced within
RADAR.
 Ensuring all stakeholders are kept informed of progress, and expounding
successes.

Ensuring that staff has the skills and competences required to contribute to the
change project, this may involve staff development and training.
 The project manager must remember that they have to manage ‘up’ as well as
‘down’.
These have to be considered within a holistic framework; they are not mutually
exclusive. The project manager should lead from the front and must demonstrate a
consistent and supportive attitude throughout the change process.
Surveying and Engineering: Principles and Practice
© 2008 by P. Watson, D. Gibson, N. Hanney, P. Rushworth, S. Smith, C. Walsh & G. Workman