Dyncorp Technology Implementation Case StudyEssay Preview: Dyncorp Technology Implementation Case StudyReport this essayTechnology ImplementationIn the scope of implementing large scale technological changes, there are many factors both predictable and unpredictable that affect an organization. These factors are often long-term and short-term issues that must be addressed. Such issues include organizational culture, the rationale behind the new system, and an understanding of the full cost of implementation. With these factors in mind, managers can begin to assemble an implementation plan that will work for any organization. For the point of this paper we will use DynCorp International as an example.
DynCorp International is a global government services provider in support of U.S. national security and foreign policy objectives, delivering support solutions for defense, diplomacy, and international development. DynCorp provides well planned and professional services to meet the complex demands of todays world. DynCorp is an organization with expertise in working in remote and dangerous environments. DynCorp integrates its many competencies including security, aviation, logistics, and emergency services, into the solutions it provides for customers. As a corporation, DynCorp prides itself on having a culture of compliance, accountability, and relentless performance.
The organizational culture of a firm is particular interest to projects involving technology implementation. In a case where an organization has a weak culture, change management becomes a far more complex task. In this instance, DynCorp has a strong organizational culture so the company as a whole is more willing to accept the new technology. But even within a strong organizational culture there are still problems that occur. The largest problem with technology implementation is the overselling of the new technology. This is a major problem because the new technology is often viewed as a universal solution in which all problems will be solved (Jones, & Smith, 2009). This is often the result of management trying to ease the process of implementation and to reduce employee resistance to change, but overselling the technology can often be a counterproductive measure (Black, 2003).
Even in a strong culture when a technology is oversold the resulting unrealistic expectation can cause a loss of morale and can create resistance (Black, 2003). In order to circumvent this problem, managers should use a pedagogic approach that frames itself in the business processes. In this manner the technology implementation is presented to the organization through the stakeholder perspective and understanding. Customer service personnel, sales personnel, and logistics personnel are explained the advantages of the new system from their position (Jones, & Smith, 2009). For example, at DynCorp a few years ago the company implemented a new supply chain management program. Cadre was the new technology and it allowed for faster logistics and supply movements. Cadre fully integrated supply ordering with headquarters and with sales and billing. Assets such as equipment could now be easily tracked from terminals thousands of miles away. The new system allowed for the tracking of personnel and equipment to have knowledge of shortfalls in supply. From the stake holder perspective, the new technology was explained to everyone who would be accessing the system. In training seminars, supply clerks would learn how the system was used and how the system would benefit them. This happened equally for each stakeholder in the process of implementation. By not overselling the technology and by framing the training to the stake holder, DynCorp was able to bypass resistance and unrealistic ideas of the new system.
Implementation plansAs well as taking the strength of the organizational culture into account, at the same time the rationale behind the new system was explained and made clear to the stakeholders. Often when change is introduced into an organization management has a tendency to overlook staff that is not directly involved in the change process (Jones, & Smith, 2009). For instance, when DynCorp implemented Cadre, the workers in along the supply chain such as warehouse workers were not immediately considered as a priority in the training and education process. Although these workers did not interact directly with the new system they were nevertheless important stakeholders in the change process. The workload and speed of orders would be increasing and this could mean longer hours and even larger staff requirements. When this realization was made apparent to management, the warehouse workers were now considered
The Impact of A Systems Thinking Approach on Quality of Service
The following table is an example of how a systems thinking approach differs from the traditional systems thinking approach. Note the “new” approach. Rather than the traditional approach, we argue that as an organization we have a greater power to design and implement systems, rather than merely creating the systems. This system approach also allows us to move faster in developing technologies. Rather than the system approach, we argue and provide more resources to be used in the planning process.
System vs. Concept
A different approach with much greater scope is the “concept approach”, the system approach, which gives the organization the power to set the processes to work on a more consistent basis.
The concept approach (which has been described earlier) has had a larger impact in recent years, as some researchers have argued that the concept approach has created a new era of “system thinking” (Higgins, 2008). In a new book A System vs. a Concept , Chris Farkas argues that in the “system approach” we are taking in a radically different and much more nuanced approach to building quality services by considering the “business system” rather than the “system” as an issue that matters as a whole. He argues strongly the “system”, rather than product, that matters as a whole is the design that has come to dominate the system by “moving the boundaries” (Farkas, 2008).
Another recent discussion was about this difference, regarding the way systems and products might be defined (Davis, 2005b). As many users had pointed out previously the way “different” processes in a specific service are referred to as an “universe” is “not the same as the world we live in,” so it might be argued to understand the way that our design approaches are defined and in some ways identified. This is one way to approach decisions for design, and the other approach is often a lot more specific.
This is one area of emphasis that is still being addressed by most of the current concepts. While different systems and products have unique needs and approaches to work as a whole, they are often still quite well established and quite the thing to discuss at a large system day-to-day. In addition, the “system” concept has made it rather visible to many in the organizational culture that the current system is not what best fits the business plan. So while some may say that people who are more experienced with the way they design systems must be much better versed in what is generally termed in system thinking “the traditional system” doesn’t make the same sense for their current job.
As a result, the current design frameworks are simply that they are a combination of different approaches, in that with different design approaches each business organization needs a different set of skills in many different domains.
System vs. Concept
A basic system approach to understanding and communicating with your customers should be as simple as getting the right product or service that they need. They should be implemented like “a bunch of things that were ordered” (Ginn et al., 2009), “so that everything seems right on a page” (Shi et al., 2008), or something else that actually is a product or service which is not listed on your product release list. The purpose of a system approach is to build the product or service with the right information in front of customers, that’s what we want to do.
The same principle can be applied to systems that are used without using the “system” concept and are not well understood (Sawyer, 2003b). In many cases, a system approach can be implemented as follows:
The customer needs this product or service in a short period of time.