Pr. François Perreault – [email protected]
Campus Director – Clermont School of Business and Founder & CEO of EPIM Afrique – School of Management and Private Engineering.
Introduction
The rapid evolution of higher education, marked by constant organizational and pedagogical changes (Parker, 2002; Lund, 2021), requires adapted approaches to effectively support these transformations. It is within this context that my research relied on Design Science Research (DSR) to design a change management approach tailored to the higher education institution in which I worked.
The structured methodological framework of Design Science proved to be highly relevant for creating practical solutions adapted to real-world needs while maintaining scientific rigor.
A Rigorous and Adapted Methodological Approach
The DSR methodology I employed, based on the work of Johannesson & Perjons (2014) and Hevner et al. (2004), follows a framework structured around five key activities that ensure an iterative and adaptive approach.
Identifying the Problem
The first step involves a thorough analysis of the identified challenges. In my case, the main challenge was designing a change management approach for a higher education institution in Morocco, dealing primarily with minor and transitional changes.
By involving key stakeholders from the outset, I was able to better understand the success factors and the institution’s real needs.
Defining the Requirements
In the second phase, requirements are defined to specify the characteristics that the artefact must possess. For example, it was essential for the approach to be flexible, participative, and transferrable to other institutions within the organization.
Designing and Developing the Artefact
The change management approach I developed is based on two key pillars:
- Co-construction with institutional collaborators to encourage engagement and the adoption of new practices.
- Eight key principles identified as crucial for successful change, including:
- Open and continuous communication.
- Involvement of key stakeholders from the project’s initial stages.
- Adaptability to unexpected challenges and the institution’s unique context.
Demonstrating the Artefact
To test the effectiveness of this approach, I implemented it progressively in partnership with the institution’s stakeholders. This demonstration phase allowed me to observe concrete results and gather direct feedback from the participants involved.
Evaluating the Artefact
The evaluation phase measured the impact of this approach on team engagement, process efficiency, and the adoption of organizational changes. Results indicated that staff involved from the early stages of the design process showed greater ownership and commitment to the new practices.
An Iterative Process for Greater Flexibility
One of the strengths of DSR lies in its iterative approach. At each stage of the process, adjustments were made based on observed results, enabling continuous improvement of the artefact. This flexible approach proved particularly effective in the educational context, where needs evolve rapidly.
Example: During the implementation of new practices in the institution, the need for additional training sessions emerged. The iterative nature of DSR allowed me to quickly adjust the training plan to meet this need.
Comparison with Classical Change Models
To assess the relevance of my approach, I compared it with well-known change models such as:
- Lewin (1951), which emphasizes the phases of unfreezing, change, and refreezing.
- Fullan (1991), which highlights the social dynamics involved in change processes.
- Kotter (1996), which presents an 8-step process for structured change implementation.
- Mento et al. (2002), which offers a 12-step approach that provides precise guidance for managing change, illustrated with practical examples.
Conclusion: While these models are valuable, they are better suited to major and planned changes. My approach, built on DSR principles, better addresses minor and transitional changes, which are common in higher education institutions.
Contemporary Issues and Perspectives
The results of my research demonstrate that higher education institutions, often facing multiple changes (pedagogical reforms, digital transformation, etc.), require more flexible and collaborative approaches.
By integrating the creation of adapted artefacts and promoting a participatory approach, DSR effectively addresses these challenges.
What about you?
- Have you ever implemented change management approaches in your organization?
How do you manage minor changes that require flexibility and adaptability? - I would be very interested in hearing your feedback and exchanging ideas on best practices in change management.
References
- Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change. Routledge.
- Fullan, M. (2002). The change leader. Educational Leadership, 59(2), 16-20.
- Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS Q 28 (1): 75–105.
- Johannesson, P., & Perjons, E. (2014). An introduction to design science. Vol. 10. Cham: Springer.
- Kotter, J.P. (1996). Leading Change. Harvard Business School Press.
- Lund, C. B. (2021). Implementing Change in Higher Education: Resolving Change Management Deficiencies and Its Effects on Process and Employee Efficiency (Doctoral dissertation, Baylor University).
- Mento, A., Jones, R., & Dirndorfer, W. (2002). A change management process: Grounded in both theory and practice. Journal of Change Management, 3(1), 45-59.
- Parker, L. D. (2002). It’s been a pleasure doing business with you: A strategic analysis and critique of university change management. Critical perspectives on accounting, 13(5-6), 603-619.
- Perreault, F. (2023). Utilisation de la Design Science pour l’élaboration d’une démarche d’accompagnement au changement : cas d’une université privée au Maroc, Thèse de doctorat, Université d’Angers, France.
#DesignScienceResearch #ChangeManagement #HigherEducation #Innovation #DigitalTransformation #Leadership