Change Management in an HIVAIDS Research Project

Change Management in an HIV/AIDS Research Project 1

Change Management series 01

Change Management in an HIV/AIDS Research Project

By

Joe Theu

Paper made in the Fulfilment of Capstone for the Masters’ degree in Business Administration

Aspen University

Supervisor

Prof. Kevin Chen

18 April 2016



Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................... 3

Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................................... 6

Initial Problem/Opportunity Statement .................................................................................................... 7

Opportunity ................................................................................................................................................. 7

Scope issues .................................................................................................................................................. 8

High Level Overview of Deliverables to Sponsor or Project: ................................................................. 9

Anticipated Sponsor or Project Benefits ................................................................................................... 9

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 9

Research Question 1 ................................................................................................................................. 10

An analysis of the RP ................................................................................................................................ 11

The External Environment .................................................................................................................. 11

Threats ............................................................................................................................................... 11

Opportunities: ................................................................................................................................... 12

Stakeholder Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 13

Research Question 2 ................................................................................................................................. 15

Methodology .......................................................................................................................................... 15

Analysis .................................................................................................................................................. 15

Results .................................................................................................................................................... 15

Findings: ................................................................................................................................................ 17

Limitations ............................................................................................................................................. 20

Discussion .............................................................................................................................................. 21

Recommendations ..................................................................................................................................... 22

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................. 24

Proposed Change Implementation Plan ................................................................................................. 24

Lessons Learnt .......................................................................................................................................... 26

References ................................................................................................................................................... 28

Appendix 1 ................................................................................................................................................. 29



Executive Summary

Introduction

Research in the era of the HIV/AIDS epidemic is ever dynamic. Scientists embarking on

a journey of a research topic that spans over a period of 3 years can anticipate numerous forces to

change their primary objectives along the way. We set out to analyze the effect of such forces on

a research project named here-in as RP designed to investigate effectiveness of a mixture of HIV

prevention strategies on reducing new infections in rural communities.

Methods

We used SWOT analysis and stakeholder analysis, questionnaires and group discussions

to analyze how these forces affect the RP strategy to change and how research employees

perceive the implementation of those changes.

Findings

We found several forces in the external environment of the RP that influence its strategy

of survival. The forces that threatened the RP were the emerging studies on HIV prevention and

care, the `new World Health Organization’s (WHO) recommendations on treatment and

prevention, new epidemics such as those of the Ebola and Zika viruses and the pressures from

the regulatory bodies such as the Data and Safety Monitoring Board(DSMB).

Research employees accepted (80%) and viewed the changes as necessary (90%). However,

research employees were split on how they perceived the introduction of the changes with half

agreeing with the process of introducing them while the other half not. Half the employees (50%)



felt that the changes directly affected them while 30% felt that the changes did not directly affect

them.

Several forms of resistance to change surfaced as described Hultman, K. (2016). Employees

made critical and fault finding statements at a rate (23.2%) when compared to (31.9%) positive

sentiments about the change. Critical statements included “the changes make staff look in-

efficient because of (management’s) poor planning”. Blaming and accusing statements were

made at a rate of 13% with statements such as “sometimes we change our plans, we are forced to

change our plans…we disappoint patients”. Ridiculing statements such as “work is increasing

the money is the same…” were made at a rate of 11.6%. Fear was demonstrated at a rate of

11.6% mainly pertaining to job insecurities. Sabotaging attitudes and those of withholding

suggestions and help were evident at the rate of 4.3% and 3% respectively.

Employee motivation remained almost the same before and after the changes. 60% of

employees remained very motivated before and after the changes while only 20% moved from

either being moderately motivated to being either being barely motivated or barely demotivated.

Recommendations

Research Projects need to analyze their external environment in-order to anticipate and to

respond to forces in their environment in-order to design and implement changes that are

necessary to make their research objectives viable. Research projects in the HIV/AIDS field such

as the RP need to avoid what Spector, B. (2013) calls “change implementation traps”.

Implementation traps are defined as “the application of appropriate change tools at inappropriate

points in the implementation process”. In general, Spector, B. (2013) cites the following steps in-

order to avoid implementation traps and to ensure effective change implementation:



Follow this order: “Shared Diagnosis 1-REDISIGN: roles, responsibilities relatioships.2. HELP:

training, mentoring, coaching. 3. PEOPLE CHANGE: assessment, promotion, replacement,

recruitment.4. SYSTEMS and STRUCTURES: reporting relationships, compensation,

information, measurement and control”.

Conclusion

The RP has several forces in its external environment which influence the viability of its

continued existence and ultimately alter its objectives in its quest to remain relevant. The RP

responds appropriately to these forces by implementing appropriate change. The RP has

successfully implemented its change process with an overall acceptance from its employees.

However, the RP has also fallen into “implementation traps” by implementing appropriate tools

of change at inappropriate stages. There are areas of improvement where the RP needs to work

on next time during implementation of change. These areas of improvement can be perhaps

addressed by following the recommendations suggested in this paper and the change

implementation plan also suggested in this paper. Lessons learnt from this survey can go a long

way in improving change management and acceptance in similar HIV research projects.



Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge all employees, the project coordinator for assisting me to

complete this paper. I also thank Onkgopotse Miller for endless support despite trying times.

Further thanks go to Yewo Theu for his unconditional support during this analysis. To you I say;

you are a Great son! To Vanessa Theu, my wife, I say; you gave me the encouragement to give it

a go at the MBA as you did on many other accomplishments. You are not here today to witness

this but I say all the glory be given to you. May your soul Rest in Peace!



Initial Problem/Opportunity Statement

Background

The Research Project (RP) study is designed to test the hypothesis that applying

prevention measures in unison to neighborhoods will cost-effectively reduce new HIV

infections in those neighborhoods. This project is implemented by the Ministry of Health,

local partners and the international partners.

The Problem

The RP has implemented and continues to implement changes to its project so as

to align the project to the current developments in the field of HIV/AIDS management.

These changes have been to adopt the “test and treat” strategy that the World Health

Organization (WHO) is recommending for all countries. The outdated protocol which the

project currently uses relies on immunological staging (a form of differentiated criteria)

to determine the eligibility of HIV positive people on ART treatment. This call for change

has arisen upon the findings of the Temprano and most recently the START study that

found that delayed ART initiation led to more deaths compared to initiating ART at CD4

counts equal or greater than 500. It no longer makes sense to continue a research project

that uses the outdated protocol to pursue its research goals or questions. The findings of a

research of that kind would be irrelevant. This situation necessitates change.

Opportunity

While change is desired, it is not easy to implement large scale change to the

whole country without creating other problems. As a result of this realization, the RP

could be used as a pilot project to launch these changes in a “phased-out” approach rather

than in the “big-bang” approach. In a “big bang” approach, there is considerable risk



which the government could incur. Going through the “phased-out” approach through the

RP would minimize that risk. The risks arise in that some of these changes not only affect

the management of the epidemic but also the people managing the disease. When change

is introduced, a lot of things can be affected from patient care to staff management. “It is

not unusual for changes to raise project costs by 50% and sometimes even more”,

according to Stare, A. (2011). Cost, scope and schedule are usually affected during

change therefore, it is crucial to pay attention to how changes are implemented. An

opportunity exists within the RP to conduct an analysis of the change management

process that comes with this change introduction within the RP project. This will also

provide a better opportunity of learning to other HIV/AIDS organizations who are

affected by these inevitable changes that come as a result of external forces including the

evolving research world at large.

Scope issues –

In Scope

The project will analyze the perception by employees of the processes so far used in

introduction of change in the RP organization.

The impact on human resources such as acceptance or resistance to change, job

satisfaction or motivation.

Out of Scope

The project will not analyze change in costs, scope, and schedule as this is beyond the

sponsor’s approval

The project will not analyze in detail, the RP’s change plan.



High Level Overview of Deliverables to Sponsor or Project:

Deliverable 1: Provide a report on changes in employee motivation.

Deliverable 2: Provide a report on degree of acceptance or resistance, forms of resistance,

causes and possible steps and possible solutions to employee resistance.

Deliverable 3: Produce a suggested change management template.

Sponsor Assistance Needed

1. Interview of employees and management

2. Access to non-confidential study documents

Anticipated Sponsor or Project Benefits

1. The sponsor will have an insight into the shortfalls and strengths from the way change is

implemented in the organization and possible ways on how change implementation could

be improved.

2. The sponsor will benefit from the lessons learnt that will be captured through this

project.

Introduction

In-order to examine change management at the RP, an internal and external analysis will

need to be conducted. We will conduct a qualitative analysis of the organization’s change

processes in response to the external environment. We will also conduct an internal and external

analysis of the organization broadly.

The focus will be specifically on how the RP responds to triggers of change and

implements change solutions to the organization. We specifically look at the employees’

perception of the steps taken to introduce change and therefore we will zone in at the reaction of



employees to those changes. This will therefore lead us to a focus on the acceptance or resistance

to the changes. Possible ways to mitigate the forms of resistance will be explored by searching

literature.

In-order to understand the root causes of this problems that will be elicited at the RP, we

will use group discussions, questionnaires and literature review.

Both qualitative and quantitative data analysis techniques will be utilized to fully understand the

issues around the introduction of change in the organization. In analyzing quantitative data,

statistical methods will be used to make meaning of the data. When analyzing data through the

use qualitative analysis, content analysis will be used to gain meaning of the themes that are

arising from the data.

Content analysis is as described by Libweb (2016) “a procedure for the categorization of

verbal or behavioral data, for purposes of classification, summarization and tabulation.” We will

analyze data at two levels using this method:

The basic level will be a description of the data in the way that it has been said without

making an attempt to create meaning. The second level of the analysis will be the higher level

where an interpretation of the responses will be gained through inference. This will be achieved

through coding and classification of data so as to elicit the significant messages.

Research Question 1

What are the forces that influence research projects to change their primary objectives?



An analysis of the RP

The External Environment

Threats

The external environment of a project such as the RP that is an HIV/AIDS research

endeavor, is filled up with a lot of dynamic changes. The goal of a study that sets out at the

beginning may not be the same goal that the project pursues in the end. There are a lot of other

research projects taking place in the quest to curb the HIV/AIDS epidemic. The findings and

outcomes of each project has the potential to influence how any organization involved in the

prevention, treatment and care of the disease operates. This means that organizations working on

HIV/AIDS research themselves have a higher chance of being influenced by other studies. Such

is the situation for the RP. Below is an examination of the threats that the RP faces in its external

environment.

The Research Environment.

Emerging studies

The emerging studies in the field of research, in particular, the Temprano study, as cited

by WHO (2015) indicate that if people infected with HIV/AIDS are started on treatment sooner,

they survive more than their counter parts who are started on treatment only when their CD4

drops below 350. The other study, the START study, as cited by NIH (2015) also indicates that

when people are started on treatment early enough, the chance for them to spread the virus to

others is reduced. These emerging studies have affected this major strategy of the RP which was

among the preventative measures it is testing in combination with other lesser strategies. This

question is no longer useful as the other big studies have already proved this to be correct and

therefore, the need for the RP study’s existence is almost zero. This means that the RP needs to

change its primary goal if needs to exist. This is the major threat to the RP.



New World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations to “test and treat”

The World Health Organization (WHO) has recommended that countries embark on a

policy of “test and treat”. This means that patients should not wait for their immunity to go down

before they can be started on treatment. This is largely due to the findings from the other studies

which have shown that it is largely beneficial for people infected with HIV and their

communities if people infected with HIV are put on treatment universally. This has meant that

the issue of when people start treatment when they are infected with HIV is no longer a research

issue but is a policy one. This is a threat that the RP also needs to deal with.

New Epidemics

The emergence of new epidemics such as those of the Ebola virus and the Zika virus are

major threats that threaten the diversion of donor funds from initiatives combating the

HIV/AIDS epidemic. The RP needs to prove to donors that its continued existence adds more

value than when it is stopped.

The Data and Safety Monitoring Board

The Data and Safety Monitoring Board is a body which oversees all the health research

worldwide and monitors the relevance of research especially in terms of safety of the participants

and the viability of the data that comes out of the research. The board reserves the right to cancel

any study that it deems to be pursuing a cause that is no longer useful for the research

community and the health world. At any point, the RP could be stopped by this body.

Opportunities:

The HIV/AIDS Treatment Guidelines



The new HIV/AIDS Treatment Guidelines which emphasize immediate treatment of

people who tested positive. The RP is already conducting massive HIV testing campaigns in the

communities. This places the RP in the right position to be a leader from whom other

organizations can learn in implementing their own programs in working with large numbers of

people being put on treatment from RP study sites. This may make the policy makers to want to

maintain the RP to act as a lead in the introduction of this new treatment policy.

Renewed political commitment to the fight against HIV/AIDS

The political situation in the world at large as well as in the country under study

specifically has seen renewed vigor to the fight against HIV/AIDS since the advances made

towards curbing the epidemic have become apparent. A trend has become apparent that the

incidence of HIV is decreasing in the most hit countries as well as in the whole world at large.

As a result of this, there is a palpable general feeling among political leaders to do more in this

fight which at first seemed insurmountable. This presents the RP with the opportunity to get

financial support necessary for its continued existence.

In summary, the RP needs to modify its strategy and goals so as to be in line with the

trends in its environment. The trends in its environment present it with threats which it needs to

overcome using its internal strengths as well as capitalizing on the opportunities the external

environment present. These opportunities are the New HIV/AIDS guidelines and the renewed

political will in the fight against HIV/AIDS.

Stakeholder Analysis



Liz Mac Dean Dan Coleman

Organization International Partner

Local Partner Min of Health Sponsor partner Regulatory body

Role on project Project Lead partner

Lead local partner Director General Lead sponsor regulator

Unique facts Very particular with meeting deadlines

Very open and mature leadership, experienced in the local health system

Custodian of the health system of the country/well versed in research statistics and public health. Very busy at this very high position

Major stakeholder very friendly and excellent listening skills

Very busy approves large amounts of research work and proposals in the country/works with few staff, has challenges meeting deadlines because of this

Level of interest Very high Very high Very high Very high low

Level of influence high medium Very high Very high Very high

Suggestions on managing relationship

Must have weekly meetings with her

Can have monthly meetings with him

Must be updated about the study monthly

Do not have direct contact but must go through Lisa regularly for close and regular contact

Must have a cordial relationship so that our work can be prioritised on his desk



Research Question 2

How do employees perceive introduction of Change in HIV/AIDS Research Projects like the

RP?

Methodology

Thirteen conveniently selected employees were involved in the study. Ten of the thirteen

were given the questionnaires to provide responses. Three employees were requested to

participate in a group discussion using the questionnaire as a guide. The questionnaire had two

sections, one on acceptance and resistance of change and the other had questions on employee

motivation. Five of the questions required discreet answers of either Yes or No while the rest

could take any amount and form of text entries.

Analysis

The discreet responses were quantified using simple mathematics to calculate

percentages. The texts were coded into themes according to a table cited by Hultman, K (2016)

as representing forms of resistance and the number of texts falling into the categories of the

themes was quantified and calculated into percentages.

Results

Discreet questions on acceptance and resistance

Question Yes NO

Q1 8 0

Q4 9 0

Q5 5 5

Q6 4 4



Q9 5 3

Responses to Questions on Motivation

Motivated Demotivated

Question Very moderately barely very moderately barely

Q4(After

change)

6 1 1 0 0 1

Q5(Before

change)

6 3 0 0 0 0

Theme analysis and coding adopted from Hultman, K (2016)

Theme Frequency Percentage

Critical/fault finding 16 23.2

Ridiculing 8 11.6

Using facts selectively 0 0

Appear to fear 8 11.6

Blaming/accusing 9 13.0

Distorting facts 0 0

Sabotaging 3 4.3

Intimidating /threatening 0 0

Starting rumor 0 0



Arguing/raising objections 0 0

Agreeing only verbally 1 1.5

Failing to implement 0 0

Procrastinating 0 0

Feigning ignorance 0 0

Withholding information,

suggestions

2 3

Standing by watching things

fail

0 0

Positive attributes 22 31.9

Total 69 100

Findings:

Acceptance of Change

Majority of the employees (80%) welcomed the changes introduced in the project so far

while the 20% were non-committal in their responses. Employees accepted and embraced the

change which the saw as the right way-forward not only for the project but also as the right

approach towards the management of HIV/AIDS.

Necessity of Change

The majority of the participants (90%) believed that the changes were necessary with the

10% being non-committal.



Introduction of the Changes

The employees were split on how the perceived the introduction of the changes with 50%

believing that the changes were introduced in the right manner and the other 50% believing that

they were not.

Effect of the change on Employees

Half (50%) of the employees indicated that the changes directly involved them while

30% of employees believed that the changes did not directly affect them. 20% were non-

committal in their responses.

Description of Acceptance and Resistance to Change

The types of resistance described by Holman, K. (2016) listed in the table 1 below were

used as themes that emerged in the analysis. The following were the findings according to each

theme in each category.

Positive Attitudes towards Change

Overall, there were 31.9% positive reactions towards changes implemented in the project.

Such statements as “‘test and treat’ (the change theme) will bring in more lost patients” “test and

treat will make us earn more certificates because we will be trained”.

Critical and Fault Finding

Critical and fault finding themes emerged as the next highest category of reactions at

23.2%. The predominant statements were statements such as “the changes make staff look in-

efficient because of (management’s) poor planning”. Staff were critical of management’s

apparent lack of proper planning or sudden notices of changes or plans. Staff feel that at times,



they could not complete their tasks because of these frequent sudden changes. Staff complained

of not being involved in the process of change introduction and given not to have been given a

chance to contribute: “they were not done in the right manner, they are done fast, people were

not given a chance”.

Blaming and Accusing

At times staff were blaming or accusing (13%) in their reactions to change. They blamed

the management for putting them in awkward situations. “Sometimes we end up borrowing

money to go for abrupt workshops…they will just say I want you here in the morning”. Other

reactions were “the changes were harsh”. There was “too much movement of staff”. Sometimes

we change our plans, we are forced to change our plans…we disappoint patients (for example

those who come) for blood collection.

Ridiculing

There were some ridiculing reactions towards the changes at a rate of 11.6% with some

statements such as “do the public know about this (change) yet?” “Our posts are being

advertised…it is tea time to go”. “Work is increasing, the money is the same”.

Fear

Staff expressed fears at a rate of 11.6%. The fears were related to the loss of their jobs or

insecurities. They were not sure whether the project was going to continue for long or whether

their posts were going to be kept. They also feared that their workload was going to increase.

Some statements showing fear were “(we are) seeing other people losing their jobs…anytime it

is... time to go”. “These changes affect me because they affect my job…it may be decided (for

the project) to be stopped”.



Sabotaging

Elements of sabotage (4.3%) were also present. Most of this represented looking for other

jobs and then quitting as soon as opportunity presents itself meaning that the project would go

with a vacant post. “If we find a stable position outside, we will quit”.

Withholding information/suggestions/help/support

The reaction of withholding either information, suggestions, help or support accounted

for 3% of the reactions. “We just do what you have been told to and (we) accommodate (it) but

we (only) meet their needs not our needs or patient’s needs”.

Employee Motivation

Employee motivation after the changes remained almost the same as before the change.

60% of the employees felt very motivated with their job before and after the change. However,

20% of the employees moved from either being very motivated or moderately motivated to being

either being barely motivated (10%) or barely demotivated (10%).

Limitations

The sample size may not be representative of the employees for two reasons: 1.The

sample size of 13 employees might not be representative of the full contingent of protocol 3

implementing staff. The convenient sampling method may cause bias in the findings. Statistical

tests of significance have not been used to examine the differences observed. The investigator is

part of the team and their bias cannot be eliminated both from the participants and from the

investigator’s perspectives.



Discussion

Spector, B. (2013) recommends four steps that start with shared diagnosis in

implementing change and cautions against what are called “implementation traps” in the

roadmap to change implementation. The “implementation traps” are defined as the application of

appropriate change tools at inappropriate points in the implementation process. Texts from the

findings such as “seeing our colleagues lose their jobs” and then “test and treat will make us earn

more certificates because we will be trained” suggest that structures were changed first and

positions lost before training was conducted which means structures were changed before

training for behavior change was effected. This has the problem of substituting refreezing with

unfreezing. Here, employees are still attached to the old social behaviors which may then cause

resistance.

By skipping the process of shared diagnosis, which as opportunity for building

commitment and harvesting from the knowledge that is rooted deeply and diversely within the

staffs, managers fall into another implementation trap and may be implementing out of touch

strategies. As advanced by Spector, B. (2013), retrenching employees as observed above without

giving them an opportunity to be trained on the new change processes may be seen as unfair,

arbitrary and may reduce trust as well as commitment.

In general, Spector, B. (2013) cites the following steps in-order to avoid implementation

traps and to ensure effective change implementation:

Follow this order: “Shared Diagnosis 1-REDISIGN: roles, responsibilities relatioships.2.

HELP: training, mentoring, coaching. 3. PEOPLE CHANGE: assessment, promotion,

replacement, recruitment.4. SYSTEMS and STRUCTURES: reporting relationships,

compensation, information, measurement and control”.



Recommendations

1. Employee of Engagement and Training

The lost opportunity of engagement should now be utilized by making sure employees

are engaged and trained about the changes. If possible, each training should be certified as the

employees seem to seek career advancement benefits from the change process. Employees want

to see these changes translate into visible benefits for patients. It would be useful to quantify the

impact of the changes on the quality of care of patients and communicate this to staff regularly.

Employees need to be involved when planning activities and further changes. They need

to be assured that interruptions in their work will not be accounted for in assessing their

efficiency. In-order to do this, care need to be taken to ensure that when events are planned,

employees are asked to specify how the change affects their work.

The stakeholders who are crucial in making sure that this recommendation is successful

are the training coordinators who are based at the international partner. These are under the

control of Liz according to the stakeholder analysis. Liz can influence the training coordinators

and make sure that they not only the employees but also issue them with meaningful certificates

which they can use to further their career prospects.

The hindering factor is that certifications require organization on the part of training

coordinators who need more time and resources to print certificates and to acquire accreditations.

However, it is possible that the international partner’s management could allocate the trainers

more resources and time to achieve this.

2. Improve Employee Welfare



When employees are called to attend meetings at places outside their work stations,

logistics need to be put in place to facilitate the ease with which they conduct their duties. This

will prevent them from blaming the job for the debts they at times incur for such arrangements.

These arrangements involve accommodation, transportation and food. The enabling factor for

this recommendation is the HR department of employees. The stakeholders that can influence

this are the PS of the Ministry of Health. The PS can ensure that policies are put in place

whereby every employee is well cared for during trainings outside their duty stations. This policy

can be made at the highest level and can be made as a requirement for all workers working in the

health field.

The hindering factors are the unavailability of funds. The mitigating factors are allowing

the communication plan described in the table above to be implemented.

3. Improve Clarity on job security

The process of retrenchment has to be explained explaining the criteria well in-advance if

there are to be retrenchments. A human face has to be seen handling the welfare of employees

who have been retrenched so that employees still on the job may be reassured that their welfare

is at the heart of the organization. This may not necessarily need monetary assistance. Activities

such as employee counseling and support and job references may help. Again the enabling factor

is the international partner’s management which can influence the HR department in

implementing this resolution.

4. Employee Involvement/ Install enablers of dialogue

The organizational silence that persists that candid feedback and open shared dialogue is

to be avoided in the organization should be removed. Some steps that can be followed to this are



installing enablers of dialogue such as doing away with executive parking and cafeteria tables,

putting the rest of the staff on the same payment scheme rather differentiating others, and using

casual communication such as use of first names.

The enabling factors of this are the use of the MOH PS to create such an environment which will

be act as an example for the other stakeholders.

Conclusion

The RP has several forces in its external environment which influence the viability of its

continued existence and ultimately alter its objectives in its quest to remain relevant. The RP

responds appropriately to these forces by implementing appropriate change. The RP has

successfully implemented its change process with an overall acceptance from its employees.

However, the RP has also fallen into “implementation traps” by implementing appropriate tools

of change at inappropriate stages. There are areas of improvement where the RP needs to work

on next time during implementation of change. These areas of improvement can be perhaps

addressed by following the recommendations suggested in this paper and the change

implementation plan also suggested in this paper. Lessons learnt from this survey can go a long

way in improving change management and acceptance in similar HIV research projects.

Proposed Change Implementation Plan

Month

1

Month

2

Month

3

Month

4

Month

5

Month

6

Leadership

alignment

Vision

worksho

ps

mission Change

agent

booklet

Change

agents

Alignment

workshop

Individu

al

coaching



Organizati

onal design

Process

definitio

n

Process

definition

Chart

finalization/r

oles specifics

Chart

finalization/r

oles specifics

Process

training/empl

oyee

mentoring

Transitio

n phase

Individual

developme

nt

Cultural

training

Cultural

training

Cultural

training

Role training

Cultural

identity

Mission,

vision

disseminat

ion

workshops

Communicat

ion program

Communicat

ion program

Communicati

on program

Team

building

Company

day

Team

objective

workshops

High

performance

teams

workshops

Global Team

workshops

Global

Team

worksho

ps

Employee

motivation

Employ

ee

satisfacti

on

survey

Project

member

recognitio

n

Project

member

recognition

Employee

satisfaction

survey

Individual

Cafeteria

program

Satisfact

ion

survey



Lessons Learnt

Focus area Low

1

2

3

4

High

5

Successes shortcomings Recommended

solutions

Change

Introduction

x Changes

necessary

Manner abrupt-

non-engaging

Shared

diagnosis(unfreeze)

Change

implementation

x Implementation

steps not in-

order

Follow this order

1-REDISIGN

roles,

responsibilities

relatioships.2.

HELP training,

mentoring,

coaching. 3.

PEOPLE

CHANGE

assessment,

promotion,

replacement,

recruitment.4.

SYSTEMS and



STRUCTURES,

reporting

relationships

,compensation,

information

,measurement and

control

Employee

Welfare

x Work hygiene

factors not

conducive

Attend to hygiene

factors of job

security, work

environment and

work conditions

Employee

Motivation

x Motivation

maintained

No specific

program for

employee

motivation

Address employee

motivational

factors-recognition

and mastery,

reward routine

non-cognition jobs

with appropriate

financial

compensation



References

Spector, B. (2013). Implementing Organizational Change. 3rd edition. Pearson. Boston

Christensen et al (2016). Research Methods, Design and Analysis. 3rd Edition. Pearson. Boston.

RP (2016). The CP Protocol. Unpublished Notes

Stare, A. (2011). Reducing Negative Impact of Project Changes with Risk and Change

Management. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/pqcentral/docview/913401431/3398DAC60FC84E23PQ/6?ac

countid=34574

Hultman, K. (2003). Managing Resistance to Change. Retrieved from

http://www.academia.edu/595772/Managing_Resistance_to_Change

Sundaram, A. (2015). Resistance and types of resistance to change. Retrieved from

http://www.slideshare.net/AjithSundaram1/resistance-and-types-of-resistance-to-change

Libweb (2016). Analyzing Qualitative Research Data. Retrieved from

http://libweb.surrey.ac.uk/library/skills/Introduction%20to%20Research%20and%20Man

aging

Stare, A. (2011). Reducing Negative Impact of Project Changes with Risk and Change

Management. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/pqcentral/docview/913401431/3398DAC60FC84E23PQ/6?ac

countid=34574



UNAIDS (2015). Implications of the start study data questions and answers. Retrieved from

http://www.unaids.org/sites/default/files/media_asset/2015_Implications_of_the_START

_study_data_en.pdf

MOH (2016). 2016 Treatment Guidelines. Unpublished document.

NIH (2015). QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS The START HIV Treatment Study. Retrieved from

https://www.niaid.nih.gov/news/QA/Pages/STARTqa.aspx

WHO (2015). WHO welcomes new evidence on the use of antiretroviral for prevention and

treatment of HIV infection. Retrieved from

http://www.who.int/hiv/mediacentre/news/croi2015-arvnews/en/

Appendix 1

Questionnaire on change

1. Do you welcome the changes that have been introduced into the project?

2. Which changes do you particularly like?

3. Which changes do you not like?

4. Do you believe that the changes were necessary?

5. Do you believe that the changes were introduced in the right manner?



6. Are you having any concerns about how the changes were introduced?

7. How did you respond to the changes you did not like?

8. How do you plan to keep responding to these changes?

9. Do the changes directly affect you?

10. How do you think these changes affect you

Questionnaire on Employee Motivation

1. What do you like about your job with the CP?

2. What is it that stands in your way to do your job perfectly?

3. Has anything changed with your job that motivates or demotivates you to perform your

duties?

4. How do you feel about your job?

1. Very motivated. 2. Moderately motivated. 3. Barely motivated. 4. Very Demotivated.

6. Moderately demotivated. 7. Barely demotivated.



5. How did you feel about your job before the changes you mentioned above?

1. Very motivated. 2. Moderately motivated. 3. Barely motivated. 4. Very Demotivated.

6. Moderately demotivated. 7. Barely demotivated.

Change Management in an HIVAIDS Research Project

Documents

Transcript of Change Management in an HIVAIDS Research Project