Good Day, Dinesh

My suggestion originates from a Knowledge Management Perspective. Heisig arrived at his change conclusion by comparing 119 KM Frameworks from around the world and their respective “success-critical context factors” which resulted in a total of 424 terms made use of categorized into four main clusters: human factors (culture, people and leadership), organizational aspects (structures and processes), information technology as well as a management processes (strategy and control). He further observed: “A broad consent prevails over the fact that a one-sided implementation of only one of these factors does not correspond to KM as a holistic effort. The task of KM is to arrange these factors in such a manner that the KM activities can be achieved as smoothly as possible. Heisig’s four clusters and observations endorse one of the Informing Science-pillars, Leavitt’s Diamond Model, which also postulates, that change may affect four components and, hence, has to be approached from four different perspectives: human factors, structure, technology, managerial and operative tasks (representing the four points of a diamond. A change affecting any one component will very likely have an impact on the others, and - as a consequence - any change process has to take account of these interdependencies in order to be managed effectively (Leavitt, 1965).

This text and the references to Heisig's and Leavitt's work can be found in the download below. Link to the freely available full text with charts and KM example is also included. All the best.

Article Putting Personal Knowledge Management under the Macroscope o...

You have to understand there are different types of change.  If you are looking at measures of productivity (output per person hour) or quality (scrap, or the need to rework or correct something), you have a zero based fixed numerical scale to measure changes over time.  If you are talking about measures on an attitude survey, often using a Likert scale, you are talking about perceptual scales.  If you tell a group of people they can and should have more involvement than they had before, it can shift responses on many perceptual scales.  The employees may well now expect more than they did when you measured prior to the change.  Last, you need to think about system changes.  If you have removed portions of management, and delegated more power, and passed more information to the lower levels, the meaning of some of the survey questions may have changed.  Decisions are now being made in a different way, so some of the survey items have taken on new meanings.  For example, items dealing with the adequacy of supervisory direction and support might no longer mean the same thing.  These three issues have been termed alpha, beta and gamma changes.  The first is the easiest to deal with, and the last is particularly hard, because the instrument is not producing results you can meaningfully compare to an earlier measurement period.  You would need to add other forms of measurement, such as interviewing and observation to deal with things that are hard to handle via multiple survey applications.  I hope this helps, Bruce

One might reasonably expect that the preparations for the change effort were buttressed by analyses of its desired outputs and outcome (usually, improved performance), and that a modicum of attention was paid also to what unplanned effects the effort might have. If so, diagnostic tools such as (i) after-action reviews and retrospects, (ii) learning histories, and (iii) evaluation ought—in ascending degree of complexity—to shine light on what was achieved. (The Five Whys technique and storytelling might be handy too.) To note, many change initiatives fail because little attempt was made to co-opt staff for self-led change; Forestalling Change Fatigue, available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238600582_Forestalling_Change_Fatigue, discusses this issue.

Article Forestalling Change Fatigue

Organizations change are intended and promoted for a reason, whether that is to be more competitive in the market, improve business processes, cut costs or some more. Organizational change are initiated through individual change - if individuals do not embrace, adopt or become proficient at the required change, then benefits will not be realized. Organizational outcomes are tied to the change being realized as a result of individual change; after all, individual employees are the heart and soul of organizations. after effects of change in an organization can be measured by developing construct related to different dimension of organisational competitiveness and other related issue. 

folling link may be useful in this direction

http://www.change-management.com/tutorial-end-in-mind.htm

https://www.wbdg.org/resources/chngorgwork.php

https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTED_96.htm

regard

Before an organization embarks on measuring change, the biggest question is how involved are you in that change? Are you its champion? Are you a stake holder that will be found along the way of the change? Or are you squarely part of the change? All this is to put you in the right position of measuring change. It also means that you may have to just measure a specific metric contributing to the whole. In other words effective change is best executed by hands on people or departments.

It is a well-known fact that using a balanced set of metrics to define success and support continuous improvement is typical of highly effective organizations, a fact that prompts other organizations to follow suite. It is very important to keep the change on target, on time and within budget, things that make metrics count. But very importantly, it is not good measuring change half way through. Hence, a full suite of change measures relies on the identification of clear measurable goals and the measurement of those goals.

The link between effective change management practices and financial performance is strong and regardless of the type of change organization’s experience, the important change activities (Big Six) remain constant.

The Big Six are:

1.       Leading

2.       Communicating

3.       Learning

4.       Measuring

5.       Involving

6.       Sustaining

How and when an organization integrates the six activities during each change phase will impact outcomes addressing 3 Strategic phases of a change programme.

The 3 Strategic phases of a change programme are:

a)       Understand the segment: Understand the environment including what is changing, the underlying business needs, impacts by audience and how stakeholders defines success, bench marking in this regard is vital. The objective of benchmarking is to understand and evaluate the current position of a business or organization in relation to best practice and to identify areas and means of performance improvement. Benchmarking involves looking outward (outside a particular business, organization, industry, region or country) to examine how others achieve their performance levels, and to understand the processes they use.

b)       Design and build: Develop tailored plans and recommendations –including tools, tactics, timing and owners to build awareness and drive behavior change.

c)       Implement and improve: Execute the change measurement plan, measure its effectiveness (both perceived and real), celebrate successes and make improvements along the way.

Many organizations place strong emphasis on the adoption and usage of:

1.        Balanced Score cards a management- The balanced scorecard is a strategic planning and management that is used extensively in business and industry, government, and nonprofit organizations worldwide to align business activities to the vision and strategy of the organization, improve internal and external communications, and monitor organization performance against strategic goals. It was originated by Drs. Robert Kaplan (Harvard Business School) and David Norton as a performance measurement using KPIs.KPI’s are performance measures that indicate progress toward a desirable outcome. Strategic KPIs monitor the implementation and effectiveness of an organization's strategies, determine the gap between actual and targeted performance and determine organization effectiveness and operational efficiency.   Good KPIs: 

·         Provide an objective way to see if strategy is working

·         Offer a comparison that gauges the degree of performance change over time

·         Focus employees' attention on what matters most to success

·         Allow measurement of accomplishments, not just of the work that is performed

·         Provide a common language for communication

·         Help reduce intangible uncertainty

·         Are valid, to ensure measurement of the right things

·         Are verifiable, to ensure data collection accuracy

Evidence suggests for example, that in 2001, the balanced score card had a utilization rate of 44% Worldwide: 57% in UK, 46% in US and 26% in Germany & Austria.

2.       Broad spectrum Performance Management Systems (PMS) - as opposed to traditional financially focused systems. Research by Cranfield School of Management  (UK) established that organizations generally implement performance measurement systems to:

·         Monitor productivity

·         Communicate strategy

·         Reduce costs

·         Review their business strategy

·         Support their compensation systems

·         Control operations

3.       Link Performance Management to Business Results.  PMS used as a management control tool, increases both organizational sales and profits, and reduces overhead costs by 25%.  Survey results to study the effects of performance measurement (PMS), 69% of manufacturing companies and 62% of services agree that performance measurement systems improve people focus.

Sources:

·         Balanced Score Card Institute

·         Towers Watson’s UK Change Management Practice

·         Cranfield School of Management

A change management program is planned and implemented with some objectives, and must be assessed against the same. Several measures have been mentioned in the responses above, so I will not list more measures and tools.

I would however like to add that an organisation must select measures that assess: 1. The  individual behaviours that were expected to change; 2. The organisational measures of climate, productivity and process effectiveness or efficiency that were expected to improve; 3. The customer perceptions that were expected to change; 4. and the financial measures that were expected to change.

When we view the after effect of the change in the organization we should observe that it is the total change in the management compass or it is merely a change for the set up  purpose .

In case of the later we have merely to look at the system of working & taking decision with the approach with the senior personnel of the organization . In this case it may not turn out to be a different tool unless the approach of the management team may be not tune with the earlier team .

In the formal case it is a Sr personnel who are reporting to the member of management team , in the meeting & why discussing the problem with the management they may try to view their views  & to find out that it may cor relate with the working system with early management , they may not experience in understanding in Management . If it is otherwise Sr person to try make their understanding in the line with management . In this case their will not be any problem with of the management .

This is my personal opinion 

I think that Bruce provides you with the best answer here. The impact of change is measured, or should be measured, at the process/performance level. Those metrics should have been the impetus for your change. At the end of the day, it becomes a program evaluation. How did the implementation impact organizational performance (as you should have previously defined it). 

My view is similar to Mr. Bruce and Mr. Cary . You can also refer to Qualitative Measures: How to measure the soft areas in an organization by Ruth Tearle .He has suggested ,How to measure individual effectiveness,team effectiveness , and the impact of change on individual employees and teams .

http://www.changedesigns.net/public/organisation/change/qualitative-measures.html

Organizational changes are strategic decisions and are effected through management's commitment &  involvement, employee engagement and participation. The important factors for change management are: transparency, communication, mutual trust, conducive organization culture, employee participation, all of  which will eventually lead to employee satisfaction. Employee satisfaction & motivation level could be measured on five point Likert scale in order to assess the impact of implementation of change. Further, productivity per employee could be measured before and after change implementation, as satisfied employees are more productive.

You have some great answers here.  I would add one more.  The most important tools to understand the effect of change are attached to your head!get out and talk with people, ask generative questions about what they are experiencing.  Listen deeply, especially to what people don't say.  See how people are behaving differently, or not.  In other words, don't just launch change and then rely on technology and tools to tell you what resulted- be actively engaged with people during and after change.  They will tell you more than any tool can.  Use the tools to help you quantify, verify, analyze, etc as supporting tools to using mind and brain.

dear, probabely you already known it, but the seminal work of Amenakis and colleague (2007) is still fundamental in order to explain change effect:

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14697010701771014

maybe it could be useful also have a look to Amenakis and colleague (2009):

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14697010902879079

You might be interested in the attached paper:

I have read from a little existing literature, this discussion adds to my insight especially. This is very nice