Ganesh Natarajan Business Case Management Case Study

Ganesh Natarajan Business Case
Name
Institution
Ganesh Natarajan Business Case
Executive Summary
The work explains the transformation of the old Solution Blueprint (SBP) to a new one to improve the performance of Zensar Company after the IT industry experienced several problems in India in the year 2005. The company’s new CEO acted as the change agent and received support from some of the firm’s employees to help in introducing the change. The CEO worked together with Dilip Ittyeara who was the company’s chief technology officer (CTO) as well as Wagh, who was the head of sales for Emerging Territories to introduce the change into the organization. The new SBP was regarded as a new technology that creates application designs and diagram for businesses. The company needed to implement the change and sale the technology to other countries, thereby, improving the profitability of the firm. Therefore, the various strategies that the CEO used to introduce and implement the change how been analyzed to determine whether they were effective.
Problem Statement
The major issue in the business case was to introduce Solution Blueprint (SBP) which is an URL that uses new technology to create application designs and diagram for businesses. The technology was introduced by Ittyera but was not fully utilized at the time because it was only applied in small scale to manage some parts of Zensar Company. However, Natarajan as the chief executive officer (CEO) of the company approached Ittyera who then was the chief technology officer (CTO) of the firm to use the new technology in a way that will contribute more revenue to the business.
Therefore, the selling of the technology to other nations globally to earn more profits to the firm constituted to a change which needed a large number of resources to be implemented. Also, the changed had to be communicated to other employees of the company to decide whether it will be beneficial to the firm if it is implemented. Hence, the objective of the assignment is to analyze the effectiveness of Natarajan strategies in introducing and implementing the change.
Analysis
Natarajan is introducing a change that is consistent with the Nudge theory of change. The theory states that the change needs to be clearly defined for everyone to understand. The CEO and the CTO explained to the employees the role of the Solution Blueprint that they wanted to introduce and how it will be used. Secondly, the employees view on the need for the change should be taken into account. In our case study, the CEO called meetings to discuss the new ideas that they wanted to bring before they were implemented. Luckily, the ideas were proposed at the meetings after which they were implemented. Thirdly, the person introducing the change will need to provide evidence that shows that its implementation is the best option over the available alternatives. The CEO and the CTO first tried selling the project to other countries in Europe, Pacific, and Africa before they discussed with other employees on how the change will be implemented and the person to lead the process (Tushman and Kiron, 2018). The intention was to prove to the employees that the idea is beneficial to the company. Also, the change will need to be presented as a choice and the feedback received will be considered. The CEO and the CEO did not coerce people to embrace the change, but presented it as an option.
Further, the person introducing the change will try to limit the obstacles and motivate people through short-term objectives. The short-term objects will improve the employees’ morale as they will see the benefits if the change process. The CEO tried to remove obstacles by firing those who were not productive and even refusing Ittyera who was the head of IT from leading the change process because he was considered incompetent for the role by various staff members.
Despite the appealing nature of the change, some individuals resisted the transformation. For instance, Zensar’s US sales executives were not comfortable with the scalability and stability of the new version of SBP, and, therefore resisted the change. Similarly, the prevailing customers were less willing to experiment a technology that had not been proven (Tushman and Kiron, 2018). The resistance is attributed to the lack of trust by the sales executives regarding whether the company can competently implement the change. Also, the involvement of CTO Dilip Ittyera who had led SBP’s development efforts into the new business unit was not accepted by most people in the company. Ittyera was regarded as possessing technical skills but was poor in management. Hence, his involvement in the new business was not supported by several people because of his incompetency to lead the process.
Apart from the reasons of those who resisted the change, other explanations show why people always refuse to embrace a change. First, people feel connected to the old ways of doing things. A change comes with new ways of conducting activities which may be difficult for some staff members to accept. Secondly, poor communication is likely to lead to resistance to change. People need to be informed continuously about the change so that they can understand its need and the benefits that they will derive from the process (Hornstein 2015). Thirdly, staff members are likely to reject the change process if they are not rewarded for their involvement. Also, the fear of the unknown is a likely impediment to change. If people are not certain about what will happen in the future if the change is implem...