Improving Organizational Performance - Case Study Example

Improving Organizational Performance Department Introduction The ability to attain and maintain high performance and productivity in any organization is a key factor that is challenging many management authorities in the current times. Dynamically and rapidly changing workplace and globalized economic state of the world has propagated the development of organizational performance as is associated with the development of individual performance, skills, knowledge and experiences (Convey, 1989; Convey, 2004; Jones et al., 2000). Management requires higher attention towards proper understanding of individual differences, needs and behaviors, and any technicalities to facilitate their understanding and management of the organizational complexities. Even though organizational performance is an idea that is perceived through the accurate measures of efficiency, effectiveness and adaptability, its enhancement begins at the bottom most level of elements composed of these measures. A manager has therefore to analyze individual performance measures in order to initiate the process of performance improvement. The main issues to be addressed in the performance improvement process include keeping focus on the measurable results, success driven by employee empowerment, measurement of results to be delivered immediately, and building on the present success for the projection of future success (Armstrong, 1994). Requirements set by the performance improvement process do present some complexities and therefore requires solutions by an appropriate methodological approach, capable of leading the entire process form the general perspective to a detailed insight and as well from an abstract insight to more practical solutions as can be used within an organization (Alasdair A. K., 1995). In addition, the modeled approach should be pragmatic enough to be applied to an existing setback, which thereafter leads to the requirement of designing processes involving a number of stages of the organizational performance improvement process. Elements of project organization structure The organizational structure of a project is made up of five key elements which include: i. Program Committee This is a temporary body set up to organize and coordinate the workflow of the entire performance improvement program, and also give directives in the program implementation strategies. A program committee consists of a chairperson of the board, top management members, and the program manager; and is headed by the CEO of the corporation. ii. Program Manager A program manager is an expert and a technocrat who is responsible for the program implementation, appointed by the program committee. He/she is charged with the duties of coordinating of individual project teams, sensitizing the program committee of the status of the ongoing activities, cooperative planning of project activities with the project managers, cooperative design of the project network charts with project managers, and controlling of the implementation of solutions reached within the project. iii. Project committee This is a group of experts, who organize and coordinate the workflow of any individual project and directing its implementation in accordance to the common program plan. A project committee is a collection of both the experts delegated by organization owners and the staff experts to ensure full implementation of the program. The project manager is also a member of the project committee to ensure effective communication between the project committee and the project teams. iv. Project team This consists of experts who are actively involved in the implementation of the project’s activities. Its membership is based on full-time basis. Positions on the project team include the project manager and the project team members. Within the project team is the project manager who is an expert mandated to directly manage the implementation of project activities. A project manager is appointed by the project committee and, hence, charged with the responsibility of being in for the overall implementation of the project. As a project team member, one is expected to be an expert who can directly perform the project activities, and appointed by the project committee to be responsible for the appropriate implementation of project activities. v. Project administration Being a process, the entire work of organizational performance improvement plan must be administered to ensure conformance with the pre-set sequence of activities or events to reach the organization’s target. As an Administrator of such projects, one would be expected to: plan the utilization of available resources; register and classify all project tasks; prepare project and program entity meetings; prepare and distribute memos concerning the project; and support everyday’s operations by preparing reports, data, documentation, records, e.t.c. At some instances, the project administrator can be assisted by a project sectary if elected. Below is a pictorial demonstration of a project organizational structure: Organizational Performance Improvement Process This process is meant to produce results that are capable of enhancing the efficiency of the entire organization operations. An organizational performance improvement sequence is a five step performance improvement model which depicts the organizational infrastructure to accurately and systematically undertake the assessment, planning, and management and evaluation performance within an organization under scrutiny. Irrespective of the organization, the main purpose of improving organizational performance is to ensure that the organizational designs processes well systematically monitors, analyzes, and adequately improves its overall performance to enhance customers’ satisfactions. In general, this process involves measuring the functioning of the very necessary and fundamental processes and services, and, when indicated, identifying changes that enhances performance. Benefits of organizational Performance Improvement Process This process benefits various levels of the organizational structure by ensuring equitable provision of: An opportunity for collaboration between the organizational departments at the head office and other minor branches that are distributed in other regions; a systematic method of measuring and tracking improvement in the key organizational processes and better associate them with the core business of the organization; a framework to utilize organizational data on an annual basis to drive decision making and strategically focus the available resources; and an opportunity for all staff throughout the organization to be productively involved in the performance improvement (Richard et al., 2009). Five Steps Organizational Performance Improvement Process Model Organizational Performance improvement process is an inclusive process that involves five steps that are in most cases based on the Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle (Bernard, M., 2008). The illustration below gives an account of the activities that take place within the sections of the cycle. Step 1: Reporting As a start-up, it is necessary to gather data so as to provide facts that drive the entire decision making process. Acquisition of data from multiple sources broadens the perspective on the issues, and equally provides a wider picture of the organization’s performance to be analyzed in order to synthesize the best course of action. This stage is characterized by the determination of the gap existing between the present and the expected performance level, as well as the fundamental factors behind the gap created. To give a precise and accurate report, one has to identify the objectives and make choice of the best performance measures that will offer solution to the current organizational performance hindrances. Step 2: Review and Analysis Data analysis from multiple sources reveals reality as is on the ground and helps to focus managerial team focus. Such data gathered allow for informed decision making, and identification of strengths and opportunities for any recommended organizational improvements, and ultimately, in the identification of potential priorities to work on. In analyzing the presented data, specific criteria should be identified to enable critical discussion on the strengths and opportunities for improvement. Among the criteria that can be used include the determination of whether; the data for a performance measure meets or exceeds the established organization’s target, the data depicts significant improvement or decline over time, and if the results obtained out of an audit indicate a measure as a strength or opportunity for possible improvements (White, R., and Hamermesh, R., 1981, p. 213). In the process of reviewing and analyzing data, it should be made explicit as of if the data available is comparable over time, determination of any gaps in the data, clarification of who is charged with the duty of monitoring data and who is being monitored, weighing if the data meet or exceed the established targets, determination of any impacts made to the organization based on the results of the data, clarification on any contributing factors impacting the data’ and estimation of how the contributing factors impacted on the data collected (Woo, C. Y., and Willard, G., 1983). Step 3: Develop/ Modify Step two generally involved analyzing data so as to identify strengths and opportunities for organizational performance improvement. Form step two, therefore, priorities to work on are set for step three. Priorities identification is quite important because it helps in the team concerned to maximize the potential of the organization’s human and financial resources, and get the most appropriate and preferred priorities to major on. It is important to note that by focusing on the few chosen priorities, an organization stands a better chance to improve the priorities’ processes and outcomes which must be communicated within the entire organization to create clarity among team members so that they can all work towards a common organizational goal (Wertheim, E.G., 1998). Prioritizing, in the development or modification of the organizational improvement initiatives, take into account the existing programs, and the current environment of the organization and/ or the community (Garvin, D. A., 1993). The decision making team should therefore be precise of the two categories of priorities and make recommendable solutions regarding each category. These categories are the noted areas of low performance that should be improved, and the noted areas of high performance that the team wishes to sustain and/ or further improve. Step 4: Implementation of an Action Plan After finalizing and identifying priorities in step three, the team can then proceed to creation and implementation of actions to effectively address the identified priorities. Action plans help in the creation of accountability for performance improvement benefits. At this stage, the plan can be used as a tool to explicitly define how, when, where, and what part of the project, as well as monitor its progress. The subsequent strategy involves focus on the potential goals, objectives, and activities for each and every priority selected, by critically considering the best strategies to be used in the achievement of the goals and objectives, as well as the resources i.e., staff, budget, equipment, and technical assistance needed in the implementation of the plan (Venkatraman, N., and Ramanujam, V., 1986, p.801). Measures to judge the effectiveness of the plan, progress towards the set goals, and accountability check must be in place. Clear, concise and SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Time-bound) goal statements and objectives for each priority should be developed to ensure that everyone on the team has similar outcome in mind as the team proceeds through the performance improvement process. This stage has two fundamental processes i.e., plan implementation and monitoring. Again, communicating the project’s aim and strategic objectives, timeframes, targets, and roles and responsibilities within the organization ensure precision among the staff, and focuses maximum efforts directly toward a single aim of impacting the priority (Yuchtman, E., and Seashore, S. E., 1967, p.892). The task of implementation provides a threefold- option that must be considered by the organization’s professionals and managers entitled to the duty of acting as change agents in the organizational performance improvement process. The options include: implementation of the redefined or modified alternatives of the initial solution; implementation of a modified alternative, soon after it has been re-tested; and/or implementation of an entirely new solution, after testing of the previous solution. In either of the cases, implementation of the redefined alternative of the original solution is most preferable whenever the modifications are capable of making the suggested solution to be successfully implemented, or implementation of an entirely new solution after it has been re-tested which requires the whole process to return to the selection and testing stages. Step 5: Evaluation Evaluation is the process of systematically reviewing data to assess the value or worth of something, in this case improving organizational performance. It is through evaluation that it becomes clear to note if the team is making some positive progress towards achieving the plan’s goals and objectives or not. Evaluation is hence targeted towards assessing the degree of success the plan has had in positively impacting the priorities (Thor, 1994). The entire evaluation process involves the initial step of getting started, collecting data, displaying data for analysis, promptly acting on the evaluation results, and finally sharing evaluation results. Analysis Performance improvement process is a strategy aimed at enhancing the ability to achieve some set targets and outcomes. Effective performance improvement is a continuous and ever evolving process, which is propelled by the gap between the current situation and the desired future of an organization (Baguley, 1994). Successful performance improvement projects are those that able to identify causes of the current performance improvement gaps, and facilitate solutions-reaching for changing that performance. Conclusion Organizational performance improvement is a multifaceted task, which, under defined circumstance, takes into account the key features of the project at hand. This step is true mostly to the cases that involve fundamental performance measures such as efficiency in respect to the net profit/ investment ration (ROI), for the profit making organizations (Senge, P. M., 1990). No matter the economic situation, the value of this RIO indicator is very necessary for the profit making organizations for the purpose of securing the recommended capital cost. All organizations should a custom to the present methodological approach of the organizational performance improvement process to enable their organizations to; quickly identify factors influencing the existing levels of the organizational performance, rapidly generate well-defined alternatives for improving the organizational performance, precisely define and implement projects which will translate the generated options into a practical solution, and rapidly and properly implement the design solutions. For inclusiveness, the application of such an approach requires the application of project management, which in the right position, should involve both the professionals and the employees. Success of the organizational performance improvement program cannot be guaranteed in case the active involvement of the organization’s employees is affected by changes. Hence, performance improvement programs are based on the stimulation of employees to fully accept and implement it readily. References Alasdair A. K. (1995). Managing for Performance. Pilatus Books. Armstrong, M. (1994). Improving Organizational Effectiveness, Kogan Page Limited, London. Baguley, Ph. (1994). Improving Organizational Performance – A Handbook for Managers, McGraw Hill Book Company, London. Bernard, M. (2008). Strategic Performance Management in Government and Public Sector Organizations. A research paper co-sponsored by Performance Improvement Network and Actuate CIPFA Covey, S.R. (1989).The Seven Habit of Highly Effective People: Restoring the Characters Ethic.UK: Simon & Schuster. Covey, S.R. (2004).The 8th Habit: From Effectiveness to Greatness.UK: Simon & Schuster. Garvin, D. A. (1993). Building a Learning Organization. Harvard Business Review 71, no. 4. Hagmann, J., Peter, H., Chuma, E., et al. (2009). The Systemic Competence Development - An approach to extend the facilitation capacity to manage systemic change and performance improvement Jones, G.R., George, J.M., & Hill, C.W.L. (2000). Contemporary Management (2nd Ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill. Richard et al. (2009): Measuring of Organizational Performance: Towards the Methodologically Best Practice. Journal of Management Senge, P. M. (1990). The 5th Discipline. Art and practice of the Learning Organization, London: Random House. Thor, G.C. (1994). The Measures of Success – Creating a High Performing Organization, John Wiley & Sons, New York. Venkatraman, N., and Ramanujam, V. (1986). Measurement of business performance in strategy research: A comparison of approaches. Academy of Management Review, 11(4): 801- 814. Wertheim, E.G. (1998).The Importance of Effective Communication [Online]. USA: Northeastern University, College of Business Administration. White, R., and Hamermesh, R. (1981). Toward a model of business unit performance: An integrated approach. Academy of Management Review, 6(2): 213-223. Woo, C. Y., and Willard, G. (1983). Performance Representation in Strategic Management Research: Discussions and Recommendations. Paper presented at the Academy of Management, Dallas. Yuchtman, E., and Seashore, S. E. (1967). A system resource approach to organizational effectiveness. American Sociological Review, 32(December): 891-903. Read More