Program implementation is normally a process of change and it requires advance planning. While the owners of a project may foresee the program as a new method to increase productivity and quality of service, it is inevitable that those others affected by the change will in one way or another resist the entire program or some aspects that they think disrupt their normal activities (Sadeghi‐Bazargani, Tabrizi & Azami‐Aghdash, 2014). The work environment is significantly dependent on the work place culture and any change within the work place is seen as an attempt to change the organizational culture. Those who have taken part in the development of the current organizational culture are in a state where they would want to sustain the status quo. The likelihood is that they will oppose any changes that may impact their work environment and render them novices or learners in their work environment (Oliver, Innvar, Lorenc, Woodman & Thomas, 2014).
On the other hand, the apparent lack of resources including time as well as commitment may affect the implementation of a program. The owners of the program may fail to integrate the staff and workers within the setting and this may deny them the opportunity to own the program and advance the adoption. Further, the leaders, administration and management within the organization may fail to afford the program the support it requires especially based on the politics that characterize the work environment (Légaré & Witteman, 2013). That would include the lack of appropriate budgetary planning to support the program due to lack of will or internal infighting and bureaucracy. At another level, when ineffective tams take up the implementation of the program, then there is a high likelihood that the process may not be completed or it may take longer than anticipated.
Further, implementation involves the use of data to support justification and tailor the program to the needs. when the process of data collection is burdensome and the program owners have failed to provide mechanisms for easy data collection, then the program may stall or may not meet the demands of the setting in which it is supposed to be adopted. Overall, the resistance to change is the biggest challenge in the implementation agenda. It is directly involves the human resource within the setting and this being the most important investment within a work setting, then the likelihood will be that even with benefits being justified, the human resource is not willing to take up the new program (Oliver, Innvar, Lorenc, Woodman & Thomas, 2014).
However, there are strengths that are always evident within the program implementation which if managed well can help overcome the barriers. On one hand is the fact that while there may be resistance there are some within the workforce who may be willing to take up the challenge and these are the majority (Oliver, Innvar, Lorenc, Woodman & Thomas, 2014). The idea is to make each of these the change agents and allow them to own the project by educating them on the benefits of the program. Further, the need to utilize focus groups and discussions as forums for educating the workforce or the target group on the importance of the program would play a key role in endearing the staff, leaders, and managers into the fold. Further, there is a need to develop effective communication networks through which all affected persons can air their grievances and the appropriate use of the emanating feedback to modify the program to reflect the needs of the target group or affected groups (Légaré & Witteman, 2013).
References
Légaré, F., & Witteman, H. O. (2013). Shared decision making: examining key elements and barriers to adoption into routine clinical practice. Health Affairs, 32(2), 276-284.
Oliver, K., Innvar, S., Lorenc, T., Woodman, J., & Thomas, J. (2014). A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMC health services research, 14(1), 1.
Sadeghi‐Bazargani, H., Tabrizi, J. S., & Azami‐Aghdash, S. (2014). Barriers to evidence‐based medicine: a systematic review. Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 20(6), 793-802.
