Talk:Change management

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Business (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Review of Article[edit]

The article could have used much more detail when it came to the history of how it started. The terms used throughout the article are ones only people who have researched this project would know. It needs to appeal better for all audiences. The total flow and presentation was good.

Peer Reviewed Citations?[edit]

This page needs more citations from the Journal of Organizational Change Management and the Journal of Change Management.

The Change Management Learning Center is a for-profit, commercial business and should not be the primary citation, as their work lacks references of the pioneers of organizational change 50 years before they started and change management practitioners that started 10-15 years before PROSCI:

I don't mind the Hiatt definition, but let's put it into context. It is one of many, many definitions out there ... not the definitive one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronkoller (talkcontribs) 23:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ron, please note that you cannot promote your own articles on Wikipedia. Pm master (talk) 08:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Pm master, I am aware that I cannot prompt my own articles on Wikipedia. I have co-authored 2 books and 1 journal article, none of which are included in these citations. I moved the Whelehan article over to, moving it from the change management resources site, a wikipedia-like non-profit community website.

NONE of these good, peer-reviewed sources are in any way related to me personally. Please look up these citations before you delete them. They are good.

Thanks, Ronkoller (talk) 12:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Could anyone please add the topic written in red....[edit]

and in corporating with the following —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

and these,8,What are the necessary characteristics of the care-team coordinator?

-- (talk) 01:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Reverted Edit[edit]

I recently reverted an edit on the article's page. The edit was done in good faith, however, it removed the important role of change management in Project Management (and associated with the narrower IT industry), as well as the references. The role of change management in IT (which probably should be software industry) is unsourced. Thankks! Pm master 15:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pm master (talkcontribs)

This edit was actually correct and should not have been reverted as noted above. The role of change management in a project management process is not different than the definition provided. Now the presentation is simply confusing and inaccurate. This is one of the problems with an unmoderated Wiki environment. The references that are remaining are not relevant and if references were to be included about change management there are many much more pertinent to this subject. I would encourage the Wiki editor for this page to delete these references as they only serve a commercial purpose.

Removed deletion tag[edit]

I have made some changes to the article and removed what I (and other contributors) think is trash. The article is notable, but still has some way to go in terms of history, current application, etc...

Thanks. It reads a bit better now, although almost all of the second section looks like original research still. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
You're more than welcome, and thanks for notifying. I will add more content to it and edit it later on. I hope other contributors will do the same.

I'd agree that this article is quite weak, although it's a good start. I didn't notice any mistakes. The needed improvements are mainly in the way of additions. As a training resource, it's not yet helpful to me. One of the first things to add is a link to the Kubler-Ross cycle of the emotional reactions to announced change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Blah, this article is really weak[edit]

It needs beefing up both on positive uses of the term, and critical assessments of it as jargon, euphemism, obfuscation, and outright bullshit. Benefac (talk) 08:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a very partisan view of change management that purports to be 'scholarly' but is very one-sided indeed. The perspective is about the 'push' side of 'selling' change to the workforce. It pays no attention to the importance of researching potential pathways for change or of involving users in planning how change might be implemented and getting their insights on current processes and how changes to them might be good/bad. Neither does it acknowledge the potential negatives -either those that are anticipated or the inevitable unexpected/unintended ones and how they should be handled. This article needs a good dose of socio-technical systems approaches starting with Tryst and the Tavistock Institute (all still current) and moving forward to the current day with especial reference to the likes of Shackel and Eason if one wants to have an especial emphasis on change involving IT or any other technology. Ned lad (talk) 14:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

basis of article[edit]

from what I have read in this article, I could only conclude that most if not major part of the article was written to for a single purpose. I do not concur that the context of organization change management which has fell out of context. I shall contribute more writings toward this article.

Comeez (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to merge ITIL Change Management article with Change Management article[edit]

This is my first posting so please excuse any poor form on my part.

My experience is in IT governance but with many organizational and cultural changes behind me and well.

While my opinion on this subject may be biased, I feel that it would serve both subjects (ITIL Change Management and Change Management in general) better to be treated as separate subjects. Managing change is a very broad subject. There are many types of changes that can and need to be be managed: Technical, Organizational [US English], Cultural, Life, Physical etc. Bundling all these change types and the managing of them in one article could render a very unwieldy result.

Also, the current article on Change Management is rather weak in substance and would require better annotations and references before it should be considered as a master article on the subject of General Change Management.

I would propose that each type of change management be treated separately and that a disambiguation page be created as has been done with other broad ranging subjects in Wikipedia.

Gobits01 (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree IT Change Management and organizational change management are very different this should be a separate article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Ditto! 13:30, 28 June 2013 (EDT)

Hear hear![edit]

I am pleased to see this dialogue about the contrast between project management (esp IT (primarily software)) Change Management and the 'socio-technical'/aka Organisation Development term "The Management of Change". To my mind they are very different and it's a shame that they are getting confused here by extending the scope of "change management".

Ursus-deningeri (talk) 20:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: Proposal to merge ITIL Change Management article with Change Management article[edit]

I agree with the user above. I'm studying ITIL as part of my work/Continuing Education for the State of Ohio. Already there are links in the main ITIL article at which lead to very ambiguous pages. They don't define, for instance, Availability Management or Business Resource Management at all in the context of ITIL. Having to wade through these pages to finally find what I need is a waste of time. I don't need to know all the study related to these -- I'm studying ITIL.

An edit was removed from a page where I added the link to the ITIL Glossary. This was because it was at the top of the page. The recommendation with the edit deletion was that the definition might better be placed in the page at the link above. It was not understood that the link IN the page above led to me wanting to let the world know there's a downloadable and VERY comprehensive glossary of ITIL terms at ITIL® glossary and abbreviations, This has them all -- someone really nit-picked the whole discipline and gathered all basic definitions here. Unusually, none of these are erudite and pithy, rather each definition is self-contained except when it is necessary for comparison of several defintions to round out a concept.

My opinion: A disambiguation page is the approach -- now I know what this means. :) Keep major topics separate, particularly when these are entire disciplines or in the case of ITIL, a large scope containing many disciplines.

Thanks -- Postal Mike, AKA The Phantom — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

James Prochaska - is a very important reference to this article - Transtheoretical Model. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosmovisor (talkcontribs) 19:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Robert Marshak vs Daryl Conner[edit]

There were two contradictory statements in the body of the page, with no indication why. The page itself is not the place to hold such discussions. Please conduct that here on the Talk page. I included the names of Daryl Conner and Don Harrison (claimed as pioneers) in the body of the text and removed all references to claims regarding their work for ODR, their creation of the MOC methodology, or any talks they might have given for IMS. If there is evidence for these that can be included as citations, then by all means reintroduce in an appropriate manner. Davidjcmorris  Talk  08:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

The Obama Administration[edit]

Article Evaluation

The article is structured appropriately by theme with a title, an introduction, and a table of contents, followed by the “History,” “Approach,” “See Also,” and “References” headings complete with subheadings. The lead section could be expanded upon to more fully summarize the article’s content and purpose. The “History” section is arranged chronologically by decade from the 1960s to the 2010s, although it is missing a 1970s section. The article is balanced well overall. Many significant aspects of change management are covered, though in a general and vague manner. The article could be expanded to include more information on the topic, namely in the “History” section. It could also include recent developments in change management, along with examples of how it is being implemented in the business world. The “Reasons for Change” and “Managing the Change Process” sections both receive lots of space to appropriately cover the topics. We will add several important models to the “Managing the Change Process” section covering the process of change management.

Overall, the coverage is currently neutral for the most part, with the article being unbiased and emphasizing facts about the change management process. However, it mostly includes all positive and neutral statements, and it needs to also include negative facets of change management to remain objective in nature. We will add a section called “Challenges of Change Management” to the “Approach” section describing barriers that hinder its implementation. This would help for the article to be read as a non-bias encyclopedia article. Also, we discovered that change management is emerging as a scholarly discipline where it is being taught as a field at an increasing number of universities. We will include a section called “Change Management as an Academic Discipline” to cover this information. The article makes references to reliable sources that are included in the “References” section at the end. It lists eleven (11) footnotes that are properly cited, including authors’ names, article and publication titles, dates published, ISBN number, URLs, and date of retrieval. The sources are mostly authoritative publications like scholarly journals, although the first reference in the list is from Forbes Online. Citations are needed in the “Managing the Change Process” section. The article includes links to other Wikipedia sites where necessary. We will add new Wikipedia links where necessary, including links to our change management models under the “Change Models” section. The article is properly categorized in the “Change Management” category on Wikipedia.

Currently, this article is within the larger WikiProject Business network. It is only rated C-Class on the project’s quality scale, meaning the article is substantial, but it is still missing important content or contains some irrelevant information. The article does not contain enough reliable information to be used as for a moderately detailed study. This article is, however, rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has a fairly robust Talk page that includes a decent amount of user dialogue.

Overall, we could expand on the article to increase its scholarly value. We could also clean it up to close gaps in content and solve cleanup problems. We could give it a direction of change management being more about a change in people and an organization’s culture (the human element) rather in the actual infrastructure of the organization.

Rjc12 (talk) 14:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Article Evaluation[edit]

Article Evaluation

For this assignment, I was tasked to analyze and comment on the article about Change Management. The first paragraph includes useful and clear overview of the topic, however, it could use a little more information that would broaden the interests of readers. They key points in this article are based on historical occurrences that have contributed to rapid changing events in the workforce and that also created a standard for change management in a way. The information includes sufficient information regarding the history and the context of this topic. It most definitely covers a variety of topics, including the reasons for such change. In addition to that, the article addresses the key issues including globalization and technology that have heavily influenced change management. There is therefore well supported evidence throughout the article and the analysis of certain models proves that the article is referenced and can be proven with contextual information.

The article itself has a clear focus on a topic and also includes detailed scholarly support throughout the text, which can be found in the reference section. The contribution considers a variety of perspectives, however, I think it primarily focuses on today’s rapidly changing world, in reference towards globalization and technology and maybe could focus more than just a few scholars. It takes an appropriate tone in providing points of view in the context of globalization and technology and is supported with appropriate references throughout the page. I think for this article there are sufficient references but more references can always be beneficial and offer more content.

The article represents a neutral point of view but in a way is sort of drawn towards today’s issues in terms of globalization and technology and offers a certain point of view. It does a good job staying with the facts and avoiding opinions. In terms of article length, the only thing I would suggest is a longer intro with a little more information for the reader to have.

Overall, it’s a well written entry with detailed information about change management. I couldn’t find any grammatical errors or any misspellings and the text itself reads well and expresses good ideas. In terms of structure, I would only add more information to the introduction to give the reader more background knowledge.

The first paragraph provides a useful overview of the topic, but could use more elaboration on the article’s main points. The key points of the article include the history of change management, the approach of change management, challenges of change management, and change management as an academic discipline. The contributions contain a sufficient and comprehensive amount of information for the topic, as well as a reasonable outline for the material that fully covers relevant topics. The points are also well supported by evidence and analysis. The article focuses on a clear topic that includes detailed scholarly support. The article considers a variety of perspectives and takes an appropriate tone in providing competing points of view. Nuances are clarified appropriately. Claims are supported with reliable references; however, more references could be added to the article. Current sources are represented accurately, following an approved form. Language is precise; however, un-sourced opinions exist within the article. The article presents a neutral point of view that remains objective in nature. The coverage overall is balanced, yet “Change Management as an Academic Discipline” could be elaborated upon. This is the shortest section within the article. The article is well written, and contains few grammatical errors. Typos are few, though the article contains a few overly complex sentences. The article could be revised to reach a broader audience; at this stage, the article is sometimes hard to comprehend for an audience of less advanced intellect. The article could be better structured; the “Approach” section is a little complex and could be broken down into smaller subsections. The article follows the proper formatting details of Wikipedia, and contains proper section organization and link citation. It contains little to no imagery; however, I do not believe that images would enhance the topic, and they do not seem necessary within the scope of this topic. Overall, the article contains a plethora of information on the topic of change management, and gives a multitude of models of change management. Adding this information provides an in depth examination of the topic. However, I believe that the opening header could contain a simpler description of change management; currently, it is a little difficult to understand the topic, due to the complexity in language. The “Approach” section could be better organized. I think the section itself could be renamed and broken down into smaller subsections. Verokokitas (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review[edit]

Comprehensiveness A. The lead article gives a pretty solid job describing change management, but i feel like they could use a little more information that would grab the readers attention. Along with a Public Administration example or definition. In my opinion this is actually a really great article and provides sufficient information in each section about change management and how it pertains to the sub topic or topic. The Points are supported with sufficient evidence when needed. B. The Article does indeed focus on a clear topic which is change management. They use examples of how it has evolved since the 60's as well as how to be successful using change management and the difference models and approaches. -The Article includes scholarly references from academic journals and books when necessary. -The author challenges different viewpoints of change management by laying out different approaches people have come up with over the years and how to be successful in using them. Sourcing -All claims seem to be supported by appropriate references when necessary and are accurate as well. There are also more than enough references that i can see that have been cited in an approved form given by the instructor. Neutrality The Author accurately represents significant viewpoints throughout the article and displays them with a neutral point of view. The only conflicting viewpoints are those stated in the different change models and which one is most successful. This article also seems to do a good job of not stating opinions as facts. Readability A. The Entry is very well written as i have already said previously and is very well organized. The sentences are well crafted and there aren't very many grammatical errors from what i can see. It seems very accessible to Wikipedia audiences and is very easy to read and navigate through. B. The structure of this article is very clear and concise. The sections are very well broken up and it is east to navigate from section to sub section when scrolling through. The paragraphs are also well structured are the appropriate length when necessary. The Entry has a clear focus of explaining change management, the history of the topic as well as different approaches. -Once again the article follows a distinct format and has appropriate section and sub section headings. -There are no images present and that is one thing that could possibly be added where necessary. Open Ended 1 What i like most about what the group has done with the article is a lot of things actually. I like the amount of information that is present in the article. Each section has sufficient information about the sub section and it is very well organized and easy to navigate. I like how they broke down the history of change management from the 60's to present and also the understanding you have of the topic after you read it. The different approaches were also interesting and how to successfully execute the strategy. Open Ended 2 The only suggestion I can make for change is adding some more information to the last section titled "Change management as an academic discipline" Also a proofread for grammatical and other structuring errors could be a good idea. Other than that this is a very well put together article with a lot of sufficient and useful information. J r186 (talk) 20:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review[edit]

Peer Review[edit]

Comprehensiveness a.Content
• Does the lead section (first paragraph) of the
article include a useful and clear overview of the topic/summary of the article’s main points? 

  • The leading section introduces the topic of Change Management. The section is short however, provides a strong clear definition of the topic.

• What are the key points of the article as you understand them?

  • This article's key points are very well supported with supported evident and links to other sources.

• Does the contribution include a sufficient amount of information for the topic and a reasonable outline for the material that fully covers the core material, relevant issues, and key debates?

  • Yes, there are sufficient information that supports their topic. The current has 4 sections with sustainable information related to the topic of Change Management.

• Are the points well supported by evidence with sufficient references and analysis?

  • The Change Management section are fully supported by 17 reference all listed in the Reference section at the end of the article.

b. Thesis and analytic focus
• Does the article focus on a clear 

  • The clear focus of this article is exploring the history, difference approaches, and challenges with Change Management.

• Does it include detailed scholarly support (where appropriate)? 

  • The majority of the listed references are scholarly references.

c. Representativeness 

• Does the contribution consider a 
variety of perspectives rather than relying on just the point of view of one or two scholars? 

  • The articles lists multiple approaches and challenges from a variety of points of views regarding Change Management.

• Does the contribution take an appropriate tone in providing competing points of view? 

  • The tone of this article is a very moderate tone, I do not find it intrusive at all.

• Are nuances and subtle distinctions clarified appropriately? 

  • The contributions made to this article are clarified and explained thoroughly.

• Are all claims supported where appropriate with references? 

  • Majority of the article is supported with references and citations. However, I do believe the Approach section could use more citations and references.

• How reliable are the references? Does the article have enough/too few references?

  • The 16 out of 17 references listed do appear to be creditable. The 16th reference listed is not a creditable source and should be deleted.

• Are sources represented accurately, with references following an approved form? 

• Is language precise, so that sources do no overstate claims and represent the nature of studies and the evidence provided? 

  • The language is clear and precise.

• Does the article contain un-sourced opinions or value statements?

To my knowledge the contributions to the article are opinionated and are strictly supported facts. Neutrality
• Does the article have a neutral point of view, accurately representing significant points of view on the topic without advocating or placing inappropriate weight on particular viewpoints

  • Contributors to the article do represent significant key points throughout the entire article.

• Does the article avoid stating opinions as facts?

  • The article displays a neutral point of view on the topic.

• How well balanced is the coverage? For instance, are the key elements given equal treatment? Are sections overly long or short in proportion to their importance?

  • The article displays a general balance of coverage related to Change Management. The contributors have listed approaches as well as challenges.

a. Language
• How well written is the entry? 

  • The article is very well written and very well organized.

• Are sentences carefully crafted to be clear, avoid passive voice and grammatical errors? 

  • As I have stated in my previous responses the article is clear and concise.

• Has the entry been proofread to remove typos, wording errors, misspellings, etc.? 

  • To my knowledge, the article has been proofread by remove typos, wording errors, misspellings, etc.

• Is the entry accessible to Wikipedia's broad audience, including people from different educational levels, backgrounds, nationalities, and expertise in English? 

  • The sections are accessible and comprehensible to abroad audience.

• Is complex language avoided when simple words and sentences will express the same idea clearly? 

  • The sentences are well structured and clearly straightforward to the common person.

b. Organization and style 

•Is the article’s structure clear? Does the group use/plan to use headings and subheadings, images and diagrams at appropriate places? 

  • The article is very well organized and structured. The have used the variety of layout options. The article does not provide any images.

• Does it have a clear focus and is it well organized? 

  • The contributors have designed an article that is clear and very well organized.

• Are the paragraphs well structured? 

  • The paragraphs within the sections are constructed with much attention and detail.

c. Formatting 

 • Has the submitted entry followed the proper formatting details of Wikipedia? 

  • The submitted article does follow the formatting details of Wikipedia.

• Section organization: Does the lead section have no section headings? 

  • The leading section does have a section heading as well as the content structure below.

• Links:
Does the entry link to a wide variety of other entries? Are there sufficient links to relevant related topics? 

  • The article does provide sufficient links to other relevant articles.

d. Illustrations

• The article does not provide any images. Question 1: What do you like most about what the group has done to the article so far? Why?

  • I really appreciate the section on the different approaches of Change Management.

Question 2: What are two improvements you think the article needs?

  • Change Management as an Academic Discipline section either needs to be elaborated on or deleted from the article. I am not sure the reasoning behind listing the section in the article. I would also condense the History section.

Lescast (talk) 22:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC) lescast