The U.S army has for a long time used the Standard Army Retail Supply System (SARR) in its logistical planning. Stakeholders have, however chosen to make changes, with the army now employing the Global Combat Support System-Army (GCSS-Army) for its logistical and supply needs. This is a considerable change to the organization and possesses a challenge as to how the change can be managed effectively. This paper looks into the best possible approaches for the U.S army when adopting this change in logistics and supply.
The U.S Army reports to the department of defense. The army is organized into two components, which are the United States Army Reserve and the Army National Guard.
Figure 1: The army organizational and Command Structure:
The GCSS- Army system is intended to replace an information system which is outdated and riddled with challenges. The new system is web-based and uses (SAP) software. Successful implementation of the system will give the army the ability to replace close to 20 logistics automated systems with a single system. It is a system that promises to help in better decision making while also contributing to the efficient and effective presentation of data promptly. The process of rolling out GCSS-Army is historical since a successful implementation will signify at the establishment of the largest Enterprise Resource Planning system in the Department of Defence .
Problem statement
The GCSS-Army system is an ERP system that promises a host of benefits for the army. It will lead to the disposal of a decentralized logistics systems, which had many problems associated with it. An essential aspect to consider, however, is the kind of implication that rolling out of the system will have. The GCSS-Army will have a full systemic impact, meaning that its application will probably face some challenges. The system promises to yield a host of long-term benefits such as providing timely information and offering stakeholders the ability to keep track of transactions . The implication here is that the system will introduce new processes within the army as it tries to establish its functionality. The new processes and a host of other changes within the Army are a possible challenge to the successful implementation of the GCSS-Army goals.
The benefits highlighted above cannot be fully realized without overcoming the implementation challenges first. To this end, it is necessary for leaders within the institutional Army to come up with strategies to overcome these difficulties. Given that the GCSS-Army system implies that a commercial ERP system will be applied to a non-commercial entity, the process promises to be a complex one. It is the role of the GCSS-Army product management office to guide the army through this change, to avoid the adverse outcomes arising from the unsuccessful implementation of organizational changes. This report, therefore, suggests ways through which the aforementioned office can navigate through change. It seeks to highlight the hurdles expected in this form of change and offer possible ways through which the implementation challenges can be overcome.
Literature review
Many researchers have analyzed the concept of change management, especially in the corporate world. The implementation of novel ERP systems has also been a subject of considerable research, with results showing that such changes often lead to the creation of varying attitudes within organizational members . Many reasons explain these occurrences, but research indicates that most companies, when implementing such systemic changes face challenges. According to Kemp & Low (2008), the assumption that the changes will be readily accepted is a major factor contributing to the unsuccessful implementation of changes. In ERP systems, in particular, underestimating the level of complexity of the systems can result in adverse outcomes.
According to Erwin & Garman (2010) the human resource is a key factor in determining whether an organizational change is realized. They have the ability to make the rolling out of new ERP systems such as GCSS-Army or not. Personnel resistance is a common occurrence in these cases. Before an organization embarks on the process of initiating organizational change, it is important to consider the possible negative feedback from the personnel. Various psychological factors such as fear and low motivation have been identified as leading causes of the resistance to change . Besides, other factors such as the desire to maintain the status quo, being conservative and a sense of insecurity are other aspects that lead to resistance to change. In other cases, resistance to organizational change comes as a result of ignorance. Kemp & Low (2008), points out that in the rolling out of new ERP systems, resistance may come up when the personnel lacks the appropriate skill and knowledge to achieve the changes. Besides, such personnel may have the form of misunderstanding on the changes and assume that the changes do not yield any benefits.
In the implementation of complex changes such as the GCSS-Army, it is important for organizations to acknowledge that such changes are radical. The implementation of ERP systems, especially in the corporate world fails since organizations approach the change as being incremental as opposed to the real nature of the change which is drastic . Realizing the truth about the changes gives room for the drafting of measures to counter any form of opposition.
Various models have been suggested as being instrumental in helping through the change management process. According to Aladwani (2001), organizations need to identify the different levels at which organizational change occurs. The first is on the side of the personnel, who need to have a sense of ownership of the said changes. Another level is that of management, where it is possible for leaders to lead by example in implementing the changes, with the subordinates expected to follow. In addition, various evaluation tactics need to be employed to ensure that change is managed efficiently.
Another model to consider in organizational change is coming up with a team which is in charge of the organization process, according to Kotter (1996), it is beneficial for an organization to have specific individuals with particular roles to play in the change management process. The team should preferably have members from different departments within the organization. Besides, the team can have members of different rank levels. When every stakeholder is represented in the change management team, the probability of the changed being resisted is negligible.
Problem analysis
Rolling out of the GCSS-Army system is bound to be faced with a host of challenges. First is the organizational resistance to change. A review on the literature ion change management indicates that a significant number of actors within an organization prefer to maintain the status quo regarding operations. This ERP system, however, seeks to change this by forcing the army to make changes within its internal setup to accommodate the functionality of the system. Some personnel may not support this change, with some having questions on how a commercial system can be applied in a non-commercial setting. In this case, it is advisable for the change management team to influence the army's culture proactively to one that supports changes . Besides, the changes in the logistics system can be introduced systematically, to help the personnel slowly build confidence in the system.
Another important aspect to note here is ensuring that the leaders lead the way when embracing and using the new system. Once the army leaders see the implementation of the GCSS-Army system as a priority, resistance is likely to decline . Another challenge comes in the form of education of the army personnel on how the system works, and its benefits. In any change process, the human resource plays a vital role in determining whether the change process is successful or not . It is necessary for the GCSS-Army system development office to design a comprehensive training procedure that meets al the information needs of the personnel regarding the new system. In addition, the army as a whole need to back the training process by allocating enough resources. The army leaders have to be the first to be educated on the system, to ensure that they take the position of leading the change .
Another major challenge to the implementation of the GCSS-Army system comes in the form of implementation challenges. Given the magnitude of the proposed changes, it is possible for a systemic disruption to occur. To counter this challenge, it is advisable for the change management team to adopt gradual changes. When the changes are implemented in form of steps, it gives an opportunity for the management team to formatively deal with problems as they arise . In addition, the army leaders have the role of offering periodic policy updates on the progress of the implementation of the new system.
Communication stands out as a key aspect that is often problematic in organizational change. Organizations often find it difficult to establish clear communication lines during the change process . In this case, therefore, the army needs to maintain clear communication lines that ensure that the personnel are well informed on the change process. This cultivates a sense of ownership of the change process leading to better outcomes.
Possible solutions
There are a variety of models that can help the U.S army when implementing the new GCSS-Army system. The first possible alternative is referred to as participative leadership. This is a model of change management that depends on the leaders as the key instruments in cultivating a culture that supports change. To this end, the army leadership can establish a strong relationship with the other personnel, such that the policies presented by leaders are readily accepted . This is a good model to use in solving the problems at hand, but the shortcoming is that it needs to have been initiated long before a change is rolled out.
Another possible strategy to deal with rolling out of the GCSS-Army system is empowerment. This is a model to managing change that argues that change initiatives need to be a partnership between management and personnel . Empowerment, in this case will involve allowing the army personnel to be highly involved in the change process. Authority and control of the process will be decentralized, with decision making equally split equally between army leaders and other staff.
Another approach is the systems approach to change. The main argument in this perspective is that any organization is made up of processes which are heavily impacted by both internal and external forces . In regards to change, organizations place emphasis on systems as opposed to emphasis on individuals. The army, in this case can roll out the GCSS-Army system with a focus on how the system affects the whole system. This leaves no room for focus on individuals or resistance by individuals.
Best alternative
The U.S army, in rolling out the GCSS- Army system needs to apply the eight-step change process. What informs this choice is the fact that this model introduced by John P. Kotter is a model that integrates the different aspects mentioned in the three alternatives offered above. The 8-step model brings together a collective emphasis of participative leadership, systems and empowerment of staff . For the U.S army to effectively deal with the challenges to change that come with the new system, it will be prudent to observe the eight steps suggested by Kottler.
The first three steps in this model of managing change involve laying a good foundation upon which the change is allowed to grow . These involve the formation of a sense of urgency, coming up with a team to lead the change and the development of a vision . These steps represent an emphasis placed on participative leadership. This is where the army leadership shows the rest of the army personnel why the change is necessary.
The next three steps on the other hand, direct how the army leadership can empower the general army personnel to be part and parcel of the change process . Here, the army leadership can engage in activities such as effectively communicating change, taking proactive measures to actively engage subordinate army personnel and making public the short-term wins for the organization during the change process .
The last two steps involve building on the gains made and instilling the changes in the organization culture. This is another positive for this model of approaching change management since it reveals the emphasis on systems . The change management team that the U.S army employs in this case will entrench the changes into the normal functioning of the army.
The transition from SARSS to GCSS-Army system in the U.S army is a move that will highly benefit the organization in the long-term. There are however many challenges that are likely to face the change management process. This report suggests for the application of an 8-step model of change management in a bid to meet these challenges.
References
Aladwani, A. (2001). “Change management strategies for successful ERP implementation”. Business Process Management Journal 7.3, 266-275.
Anderson, D. L. (2010). Organization Development The Process of Leading Organizational Change Third Edition. SAGE.
Erwin, D., & Garman, A. (2010). "Resistance to organizational change: linking research and practice.". Leadership & Organization Development Journal 31.1, 39-56.
Hornstein, H. (2008). USING A CHANGE MANAGEMENT APPROACH TO IMPLEMENT IT PROGRAMS. Retrieved April 30, 2016, from iveybusinessjournal.com: http://iveybusinessjournal.com/publication/using-a-change-management-approach-to-implement-it-programs/
Kemp, M., & Low, G. (2008). "ERP Innovation Implementation Model Incorporating Change Management". Business Process Management Journal,, 228-242.
Kotter, J. (1996). Leading Change. Harvard Business Press.
Northrop Grumman. (n.d). Global Combat Support System - Army (GCSS-Army). Retrieved April 30, 2016, from northropgrumman.com: http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/gcss/Pages/default.aspx
U.S Army. (n.d). Organization. Retrieved April 30, 2016, from army.mil: http://www.army.mil/info/organization/
Van de Ven, A., & Sun, K. (2011). "Breakdowns in implementing models of organization change.". The Academy of Management Perspectives25.3, 58-74.
