Organizational Resilience Management System – Plan-Do-Check-Act Model

The ORM system flow diagram change model used in the ORM (ASIS International, 2017) is very similar to the Whole-Scale Change model presented by James and Tolchinsky (2007). The critical component of both approaches is an ongoing process of continual improvement through organizational learning. Figure 2.3 indicates the cyclical, iterative progressive movement design from component to component as directed by the arrows. The activities in each box are identified and addressed through the Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle indicated in Figure 2.4.

The significant difference between the Whole-Scale Change approach and the ORM system flow diagram change model is the model's scope. Both are fully capable of addressing change on the organizational level. However, the ORM approach is designed to work at any level within the organization. Instead of focusing only on the entire organization, the ORM design works very well at smaller organization levels. However, organizational resilience is not limited to only the impacted organizational group or level; it is more holistic and interrelated through the entire organization.

ORM System Flow Diagram Model (ASIS International, 2017, p. xix)

Figure 2.3 ORM System Flow Diagram Model (ASIS International, 2017, p. xix).

Plan-Do-Check-Act Model (Adapted from ASIS International, 2017, p. 107)

Figure 2.4 Plan-Do-Check-Act Model (Adapted from ASIS International, 2017, p. 107).

For instance, if a single business department is used for the change initiative, the change effects are limited to that department. However, there are serious flaws with this sort of limitation because of the inherent influence of processes and the interrelatedness of complex organizations; the selected department surely has external stakeholders and vendors that should be involved in the ORM change and will not benefit from the change because of their being excluded from the change. The ORM model can be used on a single sub-unit of the organization for a limited effect change. However, it can affect change in the entire organization.

For this model to be useful, it is imperative for senior management to fully support the change initiative and become involved in the process. Senior management involvement is necessary even if the change is intended for only a team or department because of the nature of organizational performance assessments; if senior management is not supportive, the workers will not see the change's value and will not spend the time on an unsanctioned project.

Change Intervention Usability

The ORM model is designed for a particular change initiative, the implementation of organizational resilience management in an organization seeking to improve the organization's adaptive capacity in a complex and changing environment (ASIS International, 2017). As noted earlier, the ORM model is similar to the Whole-Scale model and can be used as such for other change initiatives. For an organizational resilience implementation initiative, certain expectations allow the model to function effectively. For instance, senior management must fully and actively support the change initiative to communicate the importance of the change to the employees.

One of the most powerful aspects of the ORM model is continual improvement through organizational learning. The development of a shared vision and organizational learning allows an organization to become truly great and instill long-term change initiatives (Senge, 2006). Through the involvement of the employees at all levels of the organizations and the acceptance of responsibility for implementing the change initiative, there is the opportunity for a fundamental change in the organization's culture. Organizational culture change is not a natural or common outcome. The model allows for the organization's full involvement or the involvement of the smaller team/department when a scaled-down approach is desired.

The major components of the model move through a cycle of progression starting with knowing the organization; followed by identifying and establishing the policy surrounding the initiative; followed next by planning the details of the change; then the actual implementation of the change; followed by checking for conformance and corrective action in addressing any feedback issues; finally, there is a comprehensive management review of the change, along with the ongoing continual improvement throughout the entire process (ASIS International, 2017).

Throughout the entire process, there is the Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle (i.e., Figure 2.4) taking place at each stage, with the inherent understanding that the model is cyclical, iterative, and process-oriented. If there is a problem at any stage of the model, it is perfectly fine to go back and make adjustments; this is not a linear process. It may be helpful to picture the diagram from Figure 2.4 decreased in size and placed next to each rectangle in Figure 2.3; this model is exceptionally fluid and flexible.

The real value of the Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle is the continual process of learning throughout the change process. Continual improvement is a clearly stated component of the model. However, continual organizational learning is an inherent expectation of the process. As noted earlier in this paper, learning from events and new norms is a critical part of the change process. Notice in Figure 2.3, the process does not end but continues to proceed through the change model in an unending cycle. The Plan-Do-Check- Act cycle allows organizations to maintain and sustain the currency of the change initiative. Change never really ends. Figure 2.5 provides a useful explanation for the Plan-Do-Check-Act model illustrated in Figure 2.4.

Plan-Do-Check-Act Model - Descriptive Notes (ASIS International, 2017, p. 107)

Figure 2.5 Plan-Do-Check-Act Model - Descriptive Notes (ASIS International, 2017, p. 107).

 
Source
< Prev   CONTENTS   Source   Next >