A.Y.T.I.: Assignment 3

Let us define first what is an Information System. An Information System (IS) is any combination of information technology and people's activities using that technology to support operations, management, and decision-making.^[1] In a very broad sense, the term information system is frequently used to refer to the interaction between people, algorithmic processes, data and technology. In this sense, the term is used to refer not only to the information and communication technology (ICT) an organization uses, but also to the way in which people interact with this technology in support of business processes. Some make a clear distinction between information systems, ICT and business processes. Information systems are distinct from information technology in that an information system is typically seen as having an ICT component. Information systems are also different from business processes. Information systems help to control the performance of business processes ^[3].

Alter argues for an information system as a special type of work system. A work system is a system in which humans and/or machines perform work using resources (including ICT) to produce specific products and/or services for customers. An information system is a work system whose activities are devoted to processing (capturing, transmitting, storing, retrieving, manipulating and displaying) information. Part of the difficulty in defining the term information system is due to vagueness in the definition of related terms such as system and information. Beynon-Davies argues for a clearer terminology based in systemics and semiotics. He defines an information system as an example of a system concerned with the manipulation of signs. An information system is a type of socio-technical system. An information system is a mediating construct between actions and technology ^[5].

As such, information systems inter-relate with data systems on the one hand and activity systems on the other. An information system is a form of communication system in which data represent and are processed as a form of social memory. An information system can also be considered a semi-formal language which supports human decision making and action.

Information systems are the primary focus of study for the information systems discipline and for organisational informatics. Information systems are important tools for effectively meeting organizational objectives. Readily available, complete, and accurate information is essential for making informed and timely decisions. Being unable to obtain needed data, wading through unneeded data, or inefficiently processing needed data wastes resources. The organization must identify its information needs on the basis of a systematic identification and analysis of its mission and functions to be performed, who is to perform them, the information and supporting data needed to perform the functions, and the processes needed to most usefully structure the information. Successful information system development and acquisition must include a rigorous and disciplined process of data gathering, evaluation, and analysis prior to committing significant financial and human resources to any information system development. While implementing such an approach may not preclude all information system acquisition problems, it should produce detailed knowledge of organizational missions and operations, user information needs and alternatives to address those needs, and an open and flexible architecture that is expandable or that can be upgraded to meet future needs. The purpose and use of information system in the beginning was targeted towards reducing manual labor and increasing efficiency and thus reducing cost of doing business. Cost has thus been the ‘primal instinct’ justification for the usage of Information system in companies. Management seems to still use this justification even in today’s day and age because the IT salesman still thinks it’s the best and only way to get management buy-in. Moreover, as most other rationales used for IS have proved hard to sell, both the IT sales teams and their customers find a comfort zone in cost savings. This could also be because both sides (from all their previous experiences) are convinced of their failure before they even start out on a different track. The past experiences, in most cases were times they tried, half heartedly probably, without enough experience and failed. These failures have resulted in the baby being thrown out along with the dirty water.

Characteristics of a Quality ISP

A quality ISP must exhibit five distinct characteristics before it is useful.

Timely- The ISP must be timely. An ISP that is created long after it is needed is useless. In almost all cases, it makes no sense to take longer to plan work than to perform the work planned.

Useable- The ISP must be useable. It must be so for all the projects as well as for each project. The ISP should exist in sections that once adopted can be parceled out to project managers and immediately started.

Maintainable- The ISP must be maintainable. New business opportunities, new computers, business mergers, etc. all affect the ISP. The ISP must support quick changes to the estimates, technologies employed, and possibly even to the fundamental project sequences. Once these changes are accomplished, the new ISP should be just a few computer program executions away.

Quality- While the ISP must be a quality product, no ISP is ever perfect on the first try. As the ISP is executed, the metrics employed to derive the individual project estimates become refined as a consequence of new hardware technologies, code generators, techniques, or faster working staff. As these changes occur, their effects should be installable into the data that supports ISP computation. In short, the ISP is a living document. It should be updated with every technology event, and certainly no less often than quarterly.

Reproducible- The ISP must be reproducible. That is, when its development activities are performed by any other staff, the ISP produced should essentially be the same. The ISP should not significantly vary by staff assigned.

The information systems plan project determines the sequence for implementing specific information systems. The goal of the strategy is to deliver the most valuable business information at the earliest time possible in the most cost-effective manner.

The end product of the information systems project is an information systems plan (ISP). Once deployed, the information systems department can implement the plan with confidence that they are doing the correct information systems project at the right time and in the right sequence. The focus of the ISP is not one information system but the entire suite of information systems for the enterprise. Once developed, each identified information system is seen in context with all other information systems within the enterprise.

IT projects are accomplished within distinct development environments. The two most common are: discrete project and release. The discrete project environment is typified by completely encapsulated projects accomplished through a water-fall methodology.

In release environments, there are a number of different projects underway by different organizations and staff of varying skill levels. Once a large number of projects are underway, the ability of the enterprise to know about and manage all the different projects degrades rapidly. That is because the project management environment has been transformed from discrete encapsulated projects into a continuous flow process of product or functionality improvements that are released on a set time schedule. Figure 3 illustrates the continuous flow process environment that supports releases. The continuous flow process environment is characterized by:

Multiple, concurrent, but differently scheduled projects against the same enterprise resource

Single projects that affect multiple enterprise resources

Projects that develop completely new capabilities, or changes to existing capabilities within enterprise resources

It is precisely because enterprises have transformed themselves from a project to a release environment that information systems plans that can be created, evolved, and maintained on an enterprise-wide basis are essential.

There are four major sets of activities within the continuous flow process environment. The user/client is represented at the top in the small rectangular box. Each of the ellipses represents an activity targeted to a specific need. The four basic needs are:

Need Identification
Need Assessment
Design
Deployment

Last December 14, we have interviewed the MIS Supervisor of Samulco or Sta. Ana Multipurpose Cooperative. We asked him what are the two most frequently experienced causes of frustration of IS professionals and users while working on an IS plan. And he answered these:

Lack of Budget- the company only has limited budget for the system or it does not have any budget for the system.

A budget is generally a list of all planned expenses and revenues. It is a plan for saving and spending. The purpose of budgeting is to:

1. Provide a forecast of revenues and expenditures i.e. construct a model of how our business might perform financially speaking if certain strategies, events and plans are carried out.

2. Enable the actual financial operation of the business to be measured against the forecast.

The budget of a company is often compiled annually, but may not be. A finished budget, usually requiring considerable effort, is a plan for the short-term future, typically one year. While traditionally the Finance department compiles the company's budget, modern software allows hundreds or even thousands of people in various departments (operations, human resources, IT etc) to list their expected revenues and expenses in the final budget.

If the actual figures delivered through the budget period come close to the budget, this suggests that the managers understand their business and have been successfully driving it in the intended direction. On the other hand, if the figures diverge wildly from the budget, this sends an 'out of control' signal, and the share price could suffer as a result.

Not only is the Lack of Budget can make a system not implement, lack of budget can also

Lack of Budget is one of the dangerous factors in a company. Here is an article about how lack of budget really is dangerous to a company. This is from eweek.com:

“Enterprise Strategy Group conducted a survey of IT decision makers and discovered that more than half of respondents reported their organization had experienced a data breach in the last 12 months. The most commonly cited barrier to database security was a lack of budget – a troubling indicator with current economic conditions. A survey of IT decision makers by the Enterprise Strategy Group is enough to make those concerned about database security tremble slightly.

While 58 percent of the 179 respondents reported the database is where most confidential data is located, more than half said their organizations suffered a data breach in the last 12 months. Some 54 percent said a lack of internal processes and controls hinder the effectiveness of their database security efforts. The statistics don’t get much better from there. According to the survey, 15 percent of respondents said that their organization suffered “several confidential data breaches” in the past year, while another 41 percent claimed that their organization had experienced only one. Forty percent of the respondents cited a “lack of budget” as the major inhibitor of their database security efforts. Other common responses were “lack of senior management sponsorship”; “we do not have an accurate inventory of our enterprise databases”; and “we aren’t sure what types of database security technologies and controls we need” – all cited by 21 percent of respondents. Another challenge, the study pointed out, is that responsibility for database security is spread across several areas in an enterprise, including security administrators, IT operations, data center managers and system administrators. Forty-two percent laid the responsibility at the feet of database administrators (DBAs). At some enterprises, this has led to the creation of the position of database security specialist. But whether putting database security in the hands of one person is best depends on the size of the organization's environment, said Tom Bain, director of marketing and communications at Application Security. Application Security sponsored the survey. “2009 may be the year we really start to see the database security administrator,” he said. “But another key factor is collaboration – departments within IT need to get on the same page, and they need to identify where they’re lacking the resources, assess what they feel is priority and start working from the inside out at the data core to ensure the safeguards are in place, as well as the policies and processes. The DBA can’t really be the only person with visibility into the database – access controls are absolutely critical here.” A checks-and-balances approach is integral to ensuring high levels of security across an organization, he said. However, he added that there still must be a department or group of individuals that has ultimate responsibility for database security – and it needs to be supported by the senior management team. When it comes to that, Enterprise Strategy Group analyst Jon Oltsik said senior managers need to be educated on the specific vulnerabilities and security needs associated with databases. “I think there is an education gap that needs attention,” he said. “Often times, security people are afraid to ask for more money and senior managers equate each security dollar equally - a dollar spent for firewalls is no different than a database security dollar.”

In the report, Oltsik recommends enterprises start with a full database inventory and look for integrated database security product suites with multiple capabilities such as user monitoring, database discovery and vulnerability scanning. He also suggested businesses define policies and best practices as if they had unlimited resources, and then work backward to prioritize what they need. “ An IS plan could not really be implemented due to the lack of budget to support the system.

Resistance to Change- Resistance to change is the action taken by individuals and groups when they perceive that a change that is occurring as a threat to them.

Most people don't like change because they don't like being changed. When change comes into view, fear and resistance to change follow – often despite its obvious benefits. People fight against change because they:

· fear to lose something they value, or

· don't understand the change and its implications, or

· don't think that the change makes sense, or

· find it difficult to cope with either the level or pace of the change.

Resistance emerges when there s a threat to something the individual values. The threat may be real or it may be just a perception. It may arise from a genuine understanding of the change or from misunderstanding, or even almost total ignorance about it.

For some people resisting change, there may be multiple reasons. Adding to this complexity is the fact that sometimes the stated reason hides the real, more deeply personal reason. You will also need to recognize that people work through a psychological change process as they give up the old and come to either embrace or reject the new.

Typically, they may experience an initial denial, then begin to realize that the change cannot be ignored. Strong feelings may emerge, such as fear, anger, helplessness and frustration. Finally, the person accepts the change either negatively, with feelings of resignation and complacency, or positively, with renewed enthusiasm to capitalize on the changes. Watch out for employees who get “stuck” in one phase. Offer your support. Allow space for people to work through the stages. Give employees time to draw breath and listen with empathy.

Resistance to Change in the Workplace: Main Reasons

· Fear of the unknown. Change implies uncertainty, and uncertainty is uncomfortable. Not knowing what may potentially happen often leads to heightened anxiety. Resisting change is one of the anxiety-reducing actions.¹

· Fear of failure. The new order may require skill and abilities that may be beyond our capabilities. There is resistance to trying a new approach as people know how to operate in the existing order, but fear they will not be able to the new skills and behavior that will be required of them.

· Disagreement with the need for change. Associates may feel that the new direction is a wrong direction.

· Losing something of value. All associates want to know how the change will affect them. If people believe they will wind up losing as a result of the change, they will resist.

· Leaving a comfort zone. People are afraid to go after what they want because it would force them to stretch their comfort zones. It's only natural to put off things that scare us, to sidestep goals that require us to leave our comfort zone and take a risk.

· False beliefs. To put themselves at ease and avoid taking the risk, many people fool themselves into believing everything will all work out someday by itself.

· Misunderstanding and lack of trust. People resist change when they do not understand its implications and perceive that it might cost them much more than they gain. Such situations often occur when trust is lacking between the person initiating the change and the employees.²

· Inertia. All organizations suffer from inertia to some degree and try to maintain status quo. Change requires effort, oftentimes, a significant one. So, don't underestimate the power of fatigue and burnout.

Some reasons

1. THE RISK OF CHANGE IS SEEN AS GREATER THAN THE RISK OF STANDING STILL
Making a change requires a kind of leap of faith: you decide to move in the direction of the unknown on the promise that something will be better for you. But you have no proof. Taking that leap of faith is risky, and people will only take active steps toward the unknown if they genuinely believe – and perhaps more importantly, feel – that the risks of standing still are greater than those of moving forward in a new direction. Making a change is all about managing risk. If you are making the case for change, be sure to set out in stark, truthful terms why you believe the risk situation favors change. Use numbers whenever you can, because we in the West pay attention to numbers. At the very least, they get our attention, and then when the rational mind is engaged, the emotional mind (which is typically most decisive) can begin to grapple with the prospect of change. But if you only sell your idea of change based on idealistic, unseen promises of reward, you won’t be nearly as effective in moving people to action. The power of the human fight-or-flight response can be activated to fight for change, but that begins with the perception of risk.

2. PEOPLE FEEL CONNECTED TO OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE IDENTIFIED WITH THE OLD WAY
We are a social species. We become and like to remains connected to those we know, those who have taught us, those with whom we are familiar – even at times to our own detriment. Loyalty certainly helped our ancestors hunt antelope and defend against the aggressions of hostile tribes, and so we are hard wired, I believe, to form emotional bonds of loyalty, generally speaking. If you ask people in an organization to do things in a new way, as rational as that new way may seem to you, you will be setting yourself up against all that hard wiring, all those emotional connections to those who taught your audience the old way - and that’s not trivial. At the very least, as you craft your change message, you should make statements that honor the work and contributions of those who brought such success to the organization in the past, because on a very human but seldom articulated level, your audience will feel asked to betray their former mentors (whether those people remain in the organization or not). A little good diplomacy at the outset can stave off a lot of resistance.

3. PEOPLE HAVE NO ROLE MODELS FOR THE NEW ACTIVITY
Never underestimate the power of observational learning. If you see yourself as a change agent, you probably are something of a dreamer, someone who uses the imagination to create new possibilities that do not currently exist. Well, most people don’t operate that way. It’s great to be a visionary, but communicating a vision is not enough. Get some people on board with your idea, so that you or they can demonstrate how the new way can work. Operationally, this can mean setting up effective pilot programs that model a change and work out the kinks before taking your innovation “on the road.” For most people, seeing is believing. Less rhetoric and more demonstration can go a long way toward overcoming resistance, changing people’s objections from the “It can’t be done!” variety to the “How can we get it done?” category.

4. PEOPLE FEAR THEY LACK THE COMPETENCE TO CHANGE
This is a fear people will seldom admit. But sometimes, change in organizations necessitates changes in skills, and some people will feel that they won’t be able to make the transition very well. They don’t think they, as individuals, can do it. The hard part is that some of them may be right. But in many cases, their fears will be unfounded, and that’s why part of moving people toward change requires you to be an effective motivator. Even more, a successful change campaign includes effective new training programs, typically staged from the broad to the specific. By this I mean that initial events should be town-hall type information events, presenting the rationale and plan for change, specifying the next steps, outlining future communications channels for questions, etc., and specifying how people will learn the specifics of what will be required of them, from whom, and when. Then, training programs must be implemented and evaluated over time. In this way, you can minimize the initial fear of a lack of personal competence for change by showing how people will be brought to competence throughout the change process. Then you have to deliver.

5. PEOPLE FEEL OVERLOADED AND OVERWHELMED
Fatigue can really kill a change effort, for an individual or for an organization. If, for example, you believe you should quit smoking, but you’ve got ten projects going and four kids to keep up with, it can be easy to put off your personal health improvement project (until your first heart attack or cancer scare, when suddenly the risks of standing still seem greater than the risks of change!). When you’re introducing a change effort, be aware of fatigue as a factor in keeping people from moving forward, even if they are telling you they believe in the wisdom of your idea. If an organization has been through a lot of upheaval, people may resist change just because they are tired and overwhelmed, perhaps at precisely the time when more radical change is most needed! That’s when you need to do two things: re-emphasize the risk scenario that forms the rationale for change (as in my cancer scare example), and also be very generous and continuously attentive with praise, and with understanding for people’s complaints, throughout the change process. When you reemphasize the risk scenario, you’re activating people’s fears, the basic fight-or-flight response we all possess. But that’s not enough, and fear can produce its own fatigue. You’ve got to motivate and praise accomplishments as well, and be patient enough to let people vent (without getting too caught up in attending to unproductive negativity).

6. PEOPLE HAVE A HEALTHY SKEPTICISM AND WANT TO BE SURE NEW IDEAS ARE SOUND
It’s important to remember that few worthwhile changes are conceived in their final, best form at the outset. Healthy skeptics perform an important social function: to vet the change idea or process so that it can be improved upon along the road to becoming reality. So listen to your skeptics, and pay attention, because some percentage of what they have to say will prompt genuine improvements to your change idea (even if some of the criticism you will hear will be based more on fear and anger than substance).

7. PEOPLE FEAR HIDDEN AGENDAS AMONG WOULD-BE REFORMERS
Let’s face it, reformers can be a motley lot. Not all are to be trusted. Perhaps even more frightening, some of the worst atrocities modern history has known were begun by earnest people who really believed they knew what was best for everyone else. Reformers, as a group, share a blemished past . . . And so, you can hardly blame those you might seek to move toward change for mistrusting your motives, or for thinking you have another agenda to follow shortly. If you seek to promote change in an organization, not only can you expect to encounter resentment for upsetting the established order and for thinking you know better than everyone else, but you may also be suspected of wanted to increase your own power, or even eliminate potential opposition through later stages of change.

I saw this in a recent change management project for which I consulted, when management faced a lingering and inextinguishable suspicion in some quarters that the whole affair was a prelude to far-reaching layoffs. It was not the case, but no amount of reason or reassurance sufficed to quell the fears of some people. What’s the solution? Well, you’d better be interested in change for the right reasons, and not for personal or factional advantage, if you want to minimize and overcome resistance. And you’d better be as open with information and communication as you possibly can be, without reacting unduly to accusations and provocations, in order to show your good faith, and your genuine interest in the greater good of the organization. And if your change project will imply reductions in workforce, then be open about that and create an orderly process for outplacement and in-house retraining. Avoid the drip-drip-drip of bad news coming out in stages, or through indirect communication or rumor. Get as much information out there as fast as you can and create a process to allow everyone to move on and stay focused on the change effort.

8. PEOPLE FEEL THE PROPOSED CHANGE THREATENS THEIR NOTIONS OF THEMSELVES
Sometimes change on the job gets right to a person’s sense of identity. When a factory worker begins to do less with her hands and more with the monitoring of automated instruments, she may lose her sense of herself as a craftsperson, and may genuinely feel that the very things that attracted her to the work in the first place have been lost. I saw this among many medical people and psychologists during my graduate training, as the structures of medical reimbursement in this country changed in favor of the insurance companies, HMO’s and managed care organizations. Medical professionals felt they had less say in the treatment of their patients, and felt answerable to less well trained people in the insurance companies to approve treatments the doctors felt were necessary. And so, the doctors felt they had lost control of their profession, and lost the ability to do what they thought best for patients.

My point is not to take sides in that argument, but to point out how change can get right to a person’s sense of identity, the sense of self as a professional. As a result, people may feel that the intrinsic rewards that brought them to a particular line of work will be lost with the change. And in some cases, they may be absolutely right. The only answer is to help people see and understand the new rewards that may come with a new work process, or to see how their own underlying sense of mission and values can still be realized under the new way of operating. When resistance springs from these identity-related roots, it is deep and powerful, and to minimize its force, change leaders must be able to understand it and then address it, acknowledging that change does have costs, but also, (hopefully) larger benefits.

9. PEOPLE ANTICIPATE A LOSS OF STATUS OR QUALITY OF LIFE
Real change reshuffles the deck a bit. Reshuffling the deck can bring winners . . . and losers. Some people, most likely, will gain in status, job security, quality of life, etc. with the proposed change, and some will likely lose a bit. Change does not have to be a zero sum game, and change can (and should) bring more advantage to more people than disadvantage. But we all live in the real world, and let’s face it – if there were no obstacles (read: people and their interests) aligned against change, then special efforts to promote change would be unnecessary.

Some people will, in part, be aligned against change because they will clearly, and in some cases correctly, view the change as being contrary to their interests. There are various strategies for minimizing this, and for dealing with steadfast obstacles to change in the form of people and their interests, but the short answer for dealing with this problem is to do what you can to present the inevitability of the change given the risk landscape, and offer to help people to adjust. Having said that, I’ve never seen a real organizational change effort that did not result in some people choosing to leave the organization, and sometimes that’s best for all concerned. When the organization changes, it won’t be to everyone’s liking, and in that case, it’s best for everyone to be adult about it and move on.

10. PEOPLE GENUINELY BELIEVE THAT THE PROPOSED CHANGE IS A BAD IDEA
I’ll never forget what a supervisor of mine said to be, during the year after I had graduated from college, secure as I was in the knowledge of my well earned, pedigreed wisdom at age twenty-two. We were in a meeting, and I made the comment, in response to some piece of information, “Oh, I didn’t know that!” Ricky, my boss, looked at me sideways, and commented dryly, “Things you don’t know . . . fill libraries.” The truth is, sometimes someone’s (even – gasp! – my) idea of change is just not a good idea. Sometimes people are not being recalcitrant, or afraid, or muddle-headed, or nasty, or foolish when they resist. They just see that we’re wrong. And even if we’re not all wrong, but only half wrong, or even if we’re right, it’s important not to ignore when people have genuine, rational reservations or objections.

Not all resistance is about emotion, in spite of this list I’ve assembled here. To win people’s commitment for change, you must engage them on both a rational level and an emotional level. I’ve emphasized the emotional side of the equation for this list because I find, in my experience, that this is the area would-be change agents understand least well. But I’m also mindful that a failure to listen to and respond to people’s rational objections and beliefs is ultimately disrespectful to them, and to assume arrogantly that we innovative, change agent types really do know best. A word to the wise: we’re just as fallible as anyone.

The six phases personal or professional change

Anticipation. The waiting stage. They really don't know what to expect so they wait, anticipating what the future holds.
Confrontation. People begin to confront reality. The realize that change is really going to happen or is happening.
Realization. Post change - Realizing that nothing is ever going to be as it once was.
Depression. Often a necessary step in the change process. This is the stage where a person mourns the past. Not only have they realized the change intellectually, but now they are beginning to comprehend it emotionally as well.
Acceptance. Aacceptance of the change emotionally. Although they may still have reservations, they are not fighting the change at this stage. They may even see some of the benefits even if they are not completely convinced.
Enlightenment. In Phase 6, people completely accept the new change. In fact, many wonder how they ever managed the "old" way. Overall, they feel good about the change and accept it as the status quo from here forward.

It is important to note that people in the organizations will proceed through the different phases at different rates of speed. One person may require two months to reach Phase 6 while another may require twelve. To make things even more complex, the cycle of change is not linear. In other words, a person does not necessarily complete Phase 1 through 6 in order. It is much more common for people to jump around. One person may go from Phase 4 to Phase 5 and then back to Phase 2 again. That is why there is no easy way to determine how long a change will take to implement. However, by using the skills we've outlined above, you increase your chances of managing the change as effectively as possible.

Most people prefer predictability and stability in both their personal and professional lives. People typically avoid situations that upset order, threaten their self-interests, increase stress or involve risk. When faced with changes to the status quo, people usually resist initially. The resistance continues and, in some cases increases, until they are able to recognize the benefits of change and perceive the gains to be worth more than the risk or threats to their self-interests. James O'Toole points out in his book, Leading Change, that people resist change due to the fundamental human objection to having the will of others imposed upon them.

Overcoming Resistance to Change: Most Common Ways

· Education and communication

· Participation and involvement

· Facilitation and support

· Negotiation and agreement

· Manipulation and co-optation

· Explicit and implicit coercion

Leaders should anticipate resistance to any change effort, prepare for it, and make special efforts to assess and deal with individual reactions to change.

Leaders must develop the proper attitude toward resistance to change and realize that it is neither good nor bad. In fact, resistance can serve as a signal that there are ways in which the change effort should be modified and improved. The following steps should help leaders faced with resistance to their change attempts:

Actively seek out people's thoughts and reactions to the proposed changes.
Listen carefully. Do not launch into lengthy diatribes justifying the change - in the early stages, people are not interested in that. They want to be heard and have their concerns attended to. Recognize that it takes time to work through reactions to change.
Engage people in dialogue about the change. Leaders should do this only after fully understanding the specific concerns of others.
Involve Others

There is no better way to minimize resistance to change than to involve those responsible for implementing it and those affected by it. If there is no involvement early on in the planning, during the implementation and throughout perpetuation, the change effort will fail. When people feel that they are valued participants in planning and implementing the change, they are more likely to be motivated toward successful completion. The following techniques are effective ways to get people involved and gain their commitment to change efforts:

Determine who must be involved in planning the change and include them in the decision making process. Err on the side of involving more people rather than fewer. If there is a question as to whether or not a certain person's support will be needed, include them.
Ensure that people from all levels of the organization are involved in planning the change process. This means involving the people that are at the on the floor level as well. It will be these people who will make the change process succeed or fail.
Consult with employees from the areas affected by the change when determining the steps needed for change.
Seek input from people at all levels to establish realistic time frames for specific actions.
When possible, run a test program with a selected work unit and solicit feedback on what is working well, where the problem areas are and how to work out any difficulties.
Publicly recognize any employees whose suggestions are used in the change process.
Design a mechanism that provides ongoing feedback from employees throughout the change effort. Involved people are an effective barometer of what is working well and what is not working well. Ask them to suggest improvements.