Summary
Involving stakeholders directly affected by relevant optimization solutions is an essential organizational practice. Based on the case presented by Harris (2004), specific errors and potential preventive measures will be discussed.
Reasons for Stakeholder Engagement
In the context of PowerDoc’s technology implementation, stakeholders’ buy-in is crucial. Firstly, the opinions of direct participants in the working process shape an objective picture of operational procedures. According to Dodgson, Gann, and Salter (2008), narrowing the circle of decision-makers increases the level of uncertainty. In other words, managers are not competent enough due to their lack of experience with new programs, and in PowerDoc, this manifested itself in the inhibition of numerous processes. Secondly, ignoring the participation of various stakeholders is fraught with a drop in productivity. Any innovation process is accompanied by workload reduction and quality improvement (Goffin and Mitchell, 2016; Turner et al., 2017). The PowerDoc case shows that promoting the new program led to a loss of practical skills for new employees, which, in turn, became a prerequisite for insufficient productivity and a reason for revisiting the engagement strategy. Finally, as King (2021) argues, companies should take into account the interests of stakeholders in case relevant changes directly involve the latter. PowerDoc did not pay attention to personnel training and performance monitoring, which led to difficulties in implementing plans and, ultimately, staff turnover.
Potential Alternatives
In arranging the implementation of the technology in question, PowerDoc management could first train the subordinates involved. Hayes (2018) highlights the value of change management as a process for adapting new skills. If PowerDoc had organized training courses, it would have eliminated operational delays. In addition to stakeholders’ buy-in, the management of the company could have paid attention to the planning process, which, according to Leonidou et al. (2018), should accompany any changes. As Clegg, Harris, and Höpfl (2011) state, the process of centralization requires constructing strategic objectives that, in PowerDoc’s case, could have corrected the operational process. Another potentially valuable alternative was to involve stakeholders directly in the development of technology to adapt it to the needs of the company. Falaju (2020) cites the example of the Nigeria Broadcasting Commission, which, with the mission of optimizing operations, implemented interactions with target participants. According to Salvioni and Almici (2020), establishing relevant practical values and strategic tasks is no less important and engaging stakeholders. Thus, PowerDoc management should have taken these alternatives into account.
Reference List
Clegg, S. R., Harris, M. and Höpfl, H. (eds.). (2011) Managing modernity: beyond bureaucracy? Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dodgson, M., Gann, D. M. and Salter, A. (2008) The management of technological innovation: strategy and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Falaju, J. (2020) ‘Group seeks stakeholder engagement in implementation of new broadcast code’, The Guardian, Web.
Goffin, K. and Mitchell, R. (2016) Innovation management: effective strategy and implementation. 3rd edn. Cambridge: Macmillan Education.
Harris, M. (2004) PowerDoc: a case study examination of information technology, strategic choice and the management of change. Colchester: University of Essex.
Hayes, J. (2018) The theory and practice of change management. 5th edn. Basingstone: Palgrave Macmillan.
King, M. (2021) ‘Stakeholder collaboration will help companies and society thrive’, Financial Times, Web.
Leonidou, E. et al. (2020) ‘An integrative framework of stakeholder engagement for innovation management and entrepreneurship development’, Journal of Business Research, 119, pp. 245-258.
Salvioni, D. M. and Almici, A. (2020) ‘Transitioning toward a circular economy: the impact of stakeholder engagement on sustainability culture’, Sustainability, 12(20), p. 8641.
Turner, S. et al. (2017) ‘Evidence use in decision-making on introducing innovations: a systematic scoping review with stakeholder feedback’, Implementation Science, 12(1), pp. 1-12.