Stakeholder Analysis Exercise Using The Following Sce 093394

Stakeholder Analysis Exerciseusing The Following Scenario Fill In The

Fill in the stakeholder analysis worksheet based on the scenario of transitioning from Microsoft Office and Windows 7 to Google Suite and new infrastructure in an organization that has poorly managed application portfolios, inconsistent documentation, and a decentralized, open workspace environment. Identify stakeholder roles, current and desired resistance levels, potential wins, and resistance factors.

Use creative judgment to define the stakeholders' interests, influence, and attitudes towards the change, considering organizational culture, management structure, technology use, and communication gaps described in the scenario.

Paper For Above instruction

The transition of an organization’s IT infrastructure from a Microsoft-centric environment—including outdated Windows 7 operating systems and multiple versions of Office—to a unified Google Suite platform is a complex undertaking that involves numerous stakeholders. Conducting a comprehensive stakeholder analysis is essential for managing resistance, fostering engagement, and ensuring a smooth change process. This paper delineates key stakeholders, assesses their current and target resistance levels, identifies potential wins that could motivate support, and explores factors influencing their resistance within the organizational context described.

Stakeholder Identification and Analysis

The primary stakeholders include IT personnel, department managers, employees across various departments, the CIO, Human Resources, and external vendors or consultants. Each possesses divergent interests, influence levels, and resistance tendencies influenced by organizational culture, communication practices, and technological familiarity.

IT Department and IT Personnel

As the managers of the technical transition, IT staff are central stakeholders. They are responsible for executing the migration, troubleshooting technical issues, and training users. Currently, their resistance might be moderate due to workload concerns and uncertainties around the project's scope and timeline. Their potential win entails streamlined systems, reduced support issues, and professional development opportunities. Resistance factors include fear of increased workload, resource limitations, and lack of clear leadership or project management planning.

Department Managers and Team Leaders

These stakeholders oversee groups of 30 or more employees and are impacted by changes in workflow and communication tools. Currently, resistance may be high due to the disruption of established routines, lack of involvement in planning, and inadequate communication. The desired resistance level is low; their support can facilitate user adoption. Wins for them include improved efficiency, better document management, and clearer communication channels. Resistance stems from concerns about losing control, additional training requirements, and the potential for decreased productivity during transition.

Employees and End Users

The largest stakeholder group comprises employees who use Microsoft Office, Outlook, SharePoint, Skype, and other tools daily. Currently, resistance is high owing to discomfort with change, lack of familiarity with Google Suite, and frustration with inconsistent existing systems. The goal is to reduce resistance to a manageable level to ensure adoption. Wins include simplified collaboration, mobile access, and modern tools. Resistance factors include anxiety about productivity loss, skepticism about the new platform, and perceived irrelevance of training.

Human Resources

HR’s role in overseeing training and communication processes places them as influential stakeholders. Their current resistance may be moderate to high due to conflicting responsibilities—balancing organizational change with operational stability. They see potential wins in establishing structured training programs and standardized documentation practices. Resistance might stem from bureaucratic inertia, lack of technical expertise, or hesitation to assume additional responsibilities.

CIO and Executive Leadership

The CIO supports the change but may have limited direct involvement in implementation details. Resistance levels are expected to be low; however, their support is crucial for resource allocation. Wins include strategic alignment of IT systems with organizational goals and improved security and compliance. Resistance factors include risk aversion, cost concerns, and organizational inertia.

External Vendors and Consultants

External providers offering Google Suite and transition services may have low resistance and high influence if involved in planning and execution. Their wins are contract fulfillment and reputation enhancement. Resistance is unlikely unless contractual issues arise or deliverables are unmet.

Analysis of Resistance and Strategic Planning

Assessing resistance levels enables targeted strategies. For stakeholders with high resistance, communication, involvement in planning, and demonstrating tangible benefits are critical. For example, engaging employees early through pilot programs and feedback sessions can reduce anxiety and foster ownership. For managers, demonstrating how the new system improves oversight and control can motivate support.

Creating wins entails framing the change as an opportunity for improved productivity, greater collaboration, and future readiness. Training programs tailored to varying levels of technological familiarity, clear timelines, and ongoing support are vital to minimize resistance. Addressing the communication gap by integrating HR into the change management process can promote consistency and clarity across the organization.

Conclusion

Effective stakeholder management in this IT transition hinges on understanding each stakeholder’s current resistance, desired support level, and potential motivators. By systematically addressing resistance drivers and highlighting wins, the organization can facilitate acceptance and contribute to a successful transformation from a disparate, outdated infrastructure to a unified, modern cloud-based platform.

References

  • Hiatt, J. (2006). ADKAR: A Model for Change in Business, Government and our Community. Prosci.
  • Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading Change. Harvard Business Review Press.
  • Lewis, L. K. (2006). Employees’ perceptions of organizational change: A research agenda. Human Resource Development Review, 5(1), 8-32.
  • Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1983). Stages and processes of self-change of smoking: Toward an integrative model of change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51(3), 390-395.
  • Peterson, D. (2017). Managing Organizational Change: A Multiple Perspectives Approach. Routledge.
  • Hiatt, J., & Luecke, R. (2006). ADKAR: A Model for Change. Prosci.
  • Hiatt, J. M. (2003). Change Management: The People Side of Change. Prosci Learning Center Publications.
  • Cameron, E., & Green, M. (2015). Making Sense of Change Management. Kogan Page Publishers.
  • Armenakis, A. A., & Bedeian, A. G. (1999). Organizational change: A review of theory and research. Journal of Management, 25(3), 293-315.
  • Appelbaum, S. H., Habashy, S., Malo, J. L., & Shafiq, H. (2012). Back to basics: Exploring additional factors that influence organizational change. Journal of Management & Organization, 18(3), 341-355.

Related Assignments