Chapter 7: A Mixed Method Analysis to Refine an Organizational Change Model for Technology Organizations
From the Book: The Refractive Thinker®: Vol. II: Research Methodology, Second Edition


Technology organizations face common challenges in deciding how to apply process improvement models, such as the CMMI®, to their specific organizational situation and to use it successfully to increase their organizational maturity. This exploratory, mixed methods study was conducted to discover and rank the various organizational change factors instrumental in successfully implementing CMMI® process improvement initiatives. A qualitative content analysis and a quantitative survey were conducted to obtain and analyze perceptions of qualified leaders and practitioners who have implemented the CMMI®-DEV model in technology firms.
The results of this study include a ranking of organizational change factors across a spectrum of technology firms categorized by maturity level, size of organization, budget expended on process improvement, and amount of experience with process improvement initiatives. It also includes a model, The Protean Model®, which proposes a situational approach to organizational change and decision making. Comparisons of the separate rankings obtained from the quantitative and qualitative approaches are discussed and a combined ranking of success factors is presented.
Five common organizational change factors (i.e. communication, senior leadership support, measuring progress, training employees, and operational leadership) were identified by the qualitative and quantitative analysis as being important to the success of CMMI®-based process improvement initiatives. The findings indicated there was an agreement on the list of organizational change factors associated with successful CMMI® implementations. In addition, there was general agreement in the ranking in order of importance of the organizational change factors across data sources. Research confirmed The Protean Model’s® emphasis on situational factors affecting the outcome of CMMI®-based process improvement initiatives. The differences in the ranking of these factors are illustrated and possible causes identified.
Chapter Authors: