These are the two most powerful factors that anchor the Force Field Model analysis of the enterprise software industry. With the driving and restraining forces in continual interaction and at times conflict, productivity shifts drastically across the continuums of industries based on the impact of driving and restraining forces (Paquin, Koplyay, 2007).
Cincom is being affected by the disruptive driving forces of CAPEX and OPEX most severely as competitors are quick to create a competitive advantage for themselves by seizing these areas and exploiting them in the market. CAPEX and OPEX are driving such a high rate of disruptive innovation and transformation change that it is in turn disrupting cultures of companies and reordering stakeholder dynamics as well (Koslowski, Struker, 2011). The political and technological forces are also driven by these economic ones, with the restraining forces of the Force Field Model applied to enterprise software being led by CIOs who dont want to see their political power base degraded (Koslowski, Struker, 2011). The driving forces of this change are LOB leaders who only have a certain amount of time to complete a given strategic goal, which is nearly always tied to sales and revenue targets. For these LOB leaders, the emphasis on time-to-value and the need for gaining a much greater level of impact for their it investments critical to their success (Koslowski, Struker, 2011). The Force Field Analysis indicates how strong these factors are as the very nature of how investments are made is changing rapidly today (CAPEX vs. OPEX) (Koslowski, Struker, 2011).
Finally the Force Field Analysis Model is invaluable from the Cincom standpoint and their decision to create more applications on SaaS despite resistance from CIOs as the productivity of these applications is so significant, that it has a neutralizing effect on the driving forces area of the paradigm. This dynamic of it-based disruptive transformation is eventually going to re-order the entire social fabric organization, as information and knowledge becomes more fluid and quickly applied to strategic plans and initiatives, not just the generation of reports (Yarberry, 2007). Inherent in the Force Field Analysis Model is also the need fro selecting leaders who can define, execute and own change management strategies specifically focused on SaaS adoption and growth. Aside from the most critical success factor of having transformational leadership strategies in place and ensuring a high level of ownership, selecting leaders and defining their relative roles from the operational to the strategic is critical for any long-term change management program to succeed (Doyle, 2002). Defining who will specifically drive the overall development of the SaaS applications and how they will be introduced is specifically what new leaders will need to concentrate on in the years ahead. Choosing them now will have a large impact on the overall direction of change management and balance of the Force Field Analysis. As the continual efforts of CIOs to keep the status quo deteriorate due to the pervasive adoption of CAPEX spending, the need for having transformational leaders with strong self-efficacy will accelerate (Fitzgerald, Schutte, 2010).
Leadership Analysis and the Cultural Web
The stories, symbols, power structures, organizational structures, control systems, rituals and routines all are directly impacted by any level of change. These core components of the Cultural Web in any organization often inhibit and potentially slow down change as the paradigm of organizations often is interlinked to all of these factors. The Cultural Web, in the context of Cincom Systems and their struggle to gain change management initiatives in the SaaS market, are strong in stories and symbols of how this new approach to development application is bringing in new customers. The greatest symbol of all in any enterprise software company are the financial results its customers produce on a consistent basis and the financially quantified value of the applications themselves (Koslowski, Struker, 2011). In the context of the Cultural Web, financial quantification of results and the focus on how to create change throughout it are critical success factors for any program to succeed (Nussbaumer, Merkley, 2010). For Cincom the need then is for a transformational leader who will be able to manage the diverse base of requirements inherent in the Cultural Web and create a unified, highly synchronized strategy that brings together all diverse and potentially distracting elements (Warrick, 2011). The little-discussed yet critically important area of energy and intensity applied to change management unified strategies in the Cultural Web is also important — and needs to be planned for to ensure synchronization of all elements (Wilbanks, 2011).
Finally the leadership strategies and initiatives must also support the development of autonomy, mastery and purpose, three core functional areas of long-term motivational change and growth (Yolles, Iles, Guo, 2006).
A transformational leader to drive this significant of a change will also need to have idealized influence, individualized consideration, inspirational motivation and the ability to deliver intellectual stimulation to peers, subordinates and employees. These factors are critical for the entire organization to stay coordinated in the context of the Cultural Web (Doyle, 2002). In creating SaaS-based applications that can meet the needs of an entirely new and much more profitable customer base, Cincom will need to also create a more hybrid-based approach to their Cultural Web as wlel, integrating portions of the Microsoft culture in the process. This will be critically important for creating a unified and more knowledge-based ecosystem that can turn out SaaS applications rapidly. The partnership with Microsoft will also allow for greater agility and flexibility in meeting emerging customers needs. Finally, the alliance will be seen by CIOs as an investment in what they like best, which is risk mitigation (Koslowski, Struker, 2011). The creation of a broader ecosystem in the context of the Cultural Web will be critical for the overall growth of Cincom going forward.
Cincom Systems is going through revolutionary, transformational change today as its customer base is resistant to change at the product level that will lead to entire new markets. The situation Cincom faces is very similar to Apple when they chose to move forward with the iPod initially then iPhone and finally the iPad. The decision to seek out a new market at the expense of potentially alienating the old-line and very opinionate customer base was a difficult one for Apple, yet they were able, through change management strategies and respect for the Cultural Web, create a highly effective ecosystem at the economic and socio-cultural level as well. This is what Cincom must do in order to continually grow and expand with the nascent, high growth opportunities in the market.
Armenakis, a.A. & Harris, S.G. 2002, “Crafting a change message to create transformational readiness,” Journal of Organizational Change Management, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 169-183.
Boga, I. & Ensari, N. 2009, “The Role of Transformational Leadership and Organizational Change on Perceived Organizational Success,” the Psychologist Manager Journal, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 235.
Bordum, a. 2010, “The strategic balance in a change management perspective,” Society and Business Review, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 245-258.
Brown, a.D. 1994, “Transformational leadership in tackling change,” Journal of General Management, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 1-1.
Chapman, J.A. 2002, “A framework for transformational change in organisations,” Leadership & Organization Development Journal, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 16-25.
Doyle, M. 2002, “Selecting managers for transformational change,” Human Resource Management Journal, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 3-16.
Regina Eisenbach, Kathleen Watson and, Rajnandini Pillai 1999, “Transformational leadership in the context of organizational change,” Journal of Organizational Change Management, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 80-88.
Fitzgerald, S. & Schutte, N.S. 2010, “Increasing transformational leadership through enhancing self-efficacy,” the Journal of Management Development, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 495-505.
Herold, D.M., Fedor, D.B., Caldwell, S. & Liu, Y. 2008, “The effects of transformational and change leadership on employees commitment to a change: A multilevel study,” Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 93, no. 2, pp. 346.
Hughes, M. 2007, “The Tools and Techniques of Change Management,” Journal of Change Management, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 37.
Koslowski, T. & Struker, J. 2011, “ERP on Demand Platform,” Business & Information Systems Engineering,, no. 6, pp. 1.
Lewis, P. 1996, “Transformational change using stratified systems theory,” International Journal of Public Administration, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 801-801.
Nussbaumer, a. & Merkley, W. 2010, “The path of transformational change,” Library Management, vol. 31, no. 8, pp. 678-689.
Nutt, P.C. & Backoff, R.W. 1997, “Facilitating transformational change,” the Journal of applied behavioral science, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 490-508.
Paquin, J. & Koplyay, T. 2007, “Force Field Analysis and Strategic Management: A Dynamic Approach,” Engineering Management Journal, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 28-37.
Strachan, P.A. 1996, “Managing transformational change: the learning organization and teamworking,” Team Performance Management, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 32-40.
Stensaker, I.G. & Langley, a. 2010, “Change Management Choices and Trajectories in a Multidivisional.