A need for change

Although the project was introducing a new computer system it was also being managed as a change project. A key feature of this was that processes would be standardised and people would have to change the way they work. As with most projects that involve change, some were resistant to this and quite defensive of the dependable ways of working they had developed. Hawking et al. however emphasise that ERP projects are dependent on change to achieve success[153]. As in Pollock’s study of ‘Big Civic’ [24], the project made visible a wide variety of local practices. It showed how disparate the different processes were across the university and finding out exactly how things were done was often difficult as some processes were ‘shrouded in mystery’[89]. The team found some of the practices that were in place to be shocking and often unfair to the students. The process also made clear where university regulations were not being met. One of the benefits Academic Affairs felt they would gain from the project is that by standardising processes it would help them enforce regulations that were often being broken.

The readiness for change, like the new processes, varied between schools and colleges and thus different strategies were required to prepare for them[154]. Wastell et al. suggest that clearly defining the new roles created and gaining different viewpoints of the stakeholders throughout the redesign process can reduce the fear of change and make it appear more appealing [64]. This is one of the strategies being used by GEOMETER with varying levels of success.

The negative views of GEOMETER after the problems of the first go-live have led the project to be blamed for everything that has gone wrong with admissions. In reality, many factors had an impact on the admissions process. However, the easy option is place the blame on GEOMETER. The team began to worry that people would be more resistant to the system as it started to be seen as a joke amongst some stakeholders. Some are also concerned that decisions are made about how they should work by the Project Board when they don’t really have the relevant expertise. One manager explained the attitude of users to change saying:

‘It isn’t always that people aren’t willing to change but that they need to change to something better, without lots of bugs and understand the reasons for the change.’

Another issue related to communication and preparation for change is that people struggled to envisage how they would work differently when they couldn’t see the software in front of them. This then resulted in them being surprised when they were eventually presented with it and able to step through the processes. As more of the system has been built, attempts have been made to show users these modules to give them a better idea of what to expect. Response to these demonstrations has been positive. Visual representations of some form which can help the user see how the processes will work in practice have long been recognised as useful[34] and in approaches such as Participatory Design a variety of techniques have been developed and used. Some of these such as mock-ups could have been used to help communicate the new processes to users, demonstrating what is different and why, before any of the software was ready. Having a clearer separation between the configuration, testing and training stages also made it possible for users to actually see how the whole module would work, rather than isolated parts which they got with the undergraduate admissions system.

Once the Change Team was established the project had the resources necessary to ensure the change process was managed effectively. One of the concerns was that if they did not continue to support the users then they would revert back to their old methods of working. Although there is no evidence to show this is happening, work- arounds were put in place to ensure work could continue while there were bugs in the system and some continue to be used now the bugs have been fixed. Some work arounds were also created by users to allow current work practices to continue whilst using the new system, but it is unclear whether these will be necessary and continue to be used in the future. Those resistant to the changes introduced so far are in a minority with many just being apathetic towards the project. After the go-live of the postgraduate system there was however more heated discussion and negative feedback from the colleges at the Project Board meeting and it remains to be seen how this will be managed and affect people’s feelings towards future go-lives. The extension of the project and the plans to get users involved in revisiting existing parts of the system may help to overcome these negative feelings but some may feel it is a case of too little too late.