Organizational Development Goes

Digital: Applying Simulation to

Organizational Change
JOSEPH B. LYONS

, JEREMY JORDAN

, PAUL FAAS

&
STEPHANIE SWINDLER

Air Force Research Lab, Wright-Patterson AFB, USA,

Air Force Institute of Technology, Wright-
Patterson AFB, USA
ABSTRACT Organizational change initiatives are challenging for both researchers to understand
and for practitioners/organizational leaders to execute. This article takes a conceptual approach to
describe organizational simulation technologies as one of many approaches for use in
organizational development activities while also providing two examples of how simulations have
been applied to real-world scenarios. Scenario 1 involved a process re-engineering effort within
a manufacturing organization where a manufacturing process was modeled to explore how
numerous factors (e.g. product inputs, organizational structure, manpower allocation) inuenced
the simulated output. Scenario 2 included an organizational change initiative involving
organizational design modications in a command and control center. Here, two organizational
design alternatives were compared and contrasted. Simulation technologies may provide
organizational development (OD) professionals with the opportunity to experiment with
alternative organizational designs, an inherent strength for generating potential return on
investment estimates. Researchers from the Air Force Research Laboratory have used simulation
technologies as one element of an overall organizational development strategy within two
different projects, albeit as one aspect of a larger change management strategy. This article
discusses these applied examples in the context of a conceptual discussion on the merits of
simulation as a tool to support organizational change.
KEY WORDS: Organizational change, simulation, organizational design, process improvement
Introduction
Owing to increased globalization, the introduction of advanced technologies,
wavering markets, a shrinking pool of applicants and omnipresent competition
Journal of Change Management
Vol. 11, No. 2, 207221, June 2011
Correspondence Address: Joseph B. Lyons, Air Force Research Lab, 2698 G Street, Bldg 190, Wright-Patterson
AFB, 45433-7604, USA. Email: joseph.lyons@wpafb.af.mil
1469-7017 Print/1479-1811 Online/11/02020715 #2011 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/14697017.2010.501022
at the organizational level, change is ubiquitous in contemporary organizations
(By, 2007; Karoly, 2007). Organizations must adapt to their present conditions
through change management interventions in order to maintain effective levels
of performance, and the military is no exception (Barlow and Batteau, 2000).
The military is faced with the current demands of the Global War on Terror
(GWOT) which is taxing its ability to operate effectively. The high operations
tempo characteristic of the last decade has been shown to affect soldiers well-
being and commitment (Huffman et al., 2005). Complexity in demands must be
met with complexity in organizational design (Galbraith, 2002). Yet, this is
easier said than done. Recent estimates posit that the majority of change initiatives
fail to reach the goals they set out to accomplish (Pellettiere, 2006). This fact is
exemplied in the following quote from a prominent organizational change prac-
titioner, The typical twentieth-century organization has not operated well in a
rapidly changing environment. Structure, systems, practices, and culture often
have been more of a drag on change than a facilitator. If environmental volatility
continues to increase, as most people now predict, the standard organization of the
twentieth century will likely become a dinosaur. (Kotter, 1996, p. 161). Research-
ers and practitioners alike must seek novel techniques for use in organizational
change initiatives. This article discusses organizational simulation methods as a
mechanism to evaluate and support organizational change alternatives. Further,
the article briey discusses the use of simulation in two US Air Force organiz-
ational change scenarios.
The underlying causes for the shortcoming of organizational change initiatives
go well beyond the scope of this article, however what is pertinent is that organ-
izational psychologists use all the tools available to them to help ensure that future
organizational change initiatives do not suffer a similar fate. Although this article
focuses on how simulation technologies can be applied to the organizational
change context, the authors provide more in-depth coverage of other factors
(such as change readiness, employee participation, leadership) that impact
change initiatives in the latter sections of the article. Organizational development
(OD) efforts and or work redesign programs can have a positive impact on organ-
izational outcomes (Hackman and Oldham, 1976; Porras and Berg, 1978; Klinger
and Klein, 1999). Classic organizational development literature discusses OD as a
response to mismatches between organizational and environmental factors (Porras
and Silvers, 1991). To address this mismatch, one can focus on inuencing the
organizational vision or elements of the work environment (Porras and Silvers,
1991); the present research focuses on the latter, specically, organizational
design issues. The article discusses the application of simulation technologies
that allow researchers and practitioners to experiment with different organiz-
ational designs to foster effective organizational changes within the US Depart-
ment of Defense (DoD).
Organizational Design
Organizational designs are imperative to the success of any organization because
they specify how the organization functions at various levels, thus enabling indi-
viduals to traverse individual outputs and allowing a collective output to emerge.
208 J.B. Lyons et al.
Researchers consider factors such as structure, process, rewards, personnel and
culture as the key elements of organizational design (Galbraith, 1974, 2002).
Others have referred to similar constructs in organizational design such as
people, process, technology and governance (i.e. structure and policies; Garud
et al., 2006). Although traditionally thought of as division of labor, contemporary
theorists suggest that organizations can gain strategic advantages by designing
themselves in such a way as to foster their internal organizational capabilities
(Galbraith, 2002). There are multiple facets that contribute to an effective organ-
izational design, however structure and process are two fundamental aspects of
organizations that can be used as inputs for simulation technologies.
Ultimately, and unfortunately for organizational consultants, there are no pana-
ceas to prescribe the optimal organizational design for every organization. Rather,
each organizational change initiative has a unique set of demands, constraints and,
very importantly, different leadership. The latter is an important point because
different leaders will have unique goals to accomplish through the organizational
design, as was the case in the following two examples. In the rst scenario, organ-
izational leaders were focused on establishing a baseline process model which
could be used to evaluate the impact of a wide range of factors on the productivity
of an engine repair center. This scenario was very high-level and was used primar-
ily as an exploratory tool for leadership in strategic planning. The second scenario
was intended to provide decision support to organizational leaders in evaluating
two very specic organizational structures. This scenario was more detailed and
was used for tactical planning for an actual structural change. The authors used
these two scenarios to highlight the breadth of how simulation can be used in
organizational change initiatives. Again, however, the authors must emphasize
that simulation alone is insufcient to execute organizational changes. Rather, a
comprehensive approach must be taken to incorporate various elements of
organizational change, with simulation representing but one.
Organizational Simulation
Modern organizations are constantly changing and, if they are to be successful,
they need to be able to evolve in a seamless fashion that does not disrupt their
ongoing productivity (Garud et al., 2006). This may require an evolutionary
approach to organizational change (By, 2007). These complexities of design
(i.e. structure) and the evolutions that accompany them can be captured in
digital representations of organizational design, whereas the activities (i.e. pro-
cesses) of the organization can be animated through organizational simulation
technologies. In addition, in the realm of organizational change, there is a signi-
cant need to provide return on investment (ROI) estimates for organizational
change initiatives (Cascio, 1995). Such estimates can support decision-making
among senior leaders and provide a reality check for different organizational
design alternatives to help ensure that change is being engaged for the right
reasons.
ROI estimates for organizational change initiatives may be particularly impor-
tant for government organizations because government organizational leaders
tend to have shorter tenures relative to their industry counterparts (Ostroff,
Organizational Development Goes Digital 209
2006). As a result, the potential exists for two scenarios which could both have
deleterious effects on government organizations. First, organizational leaders
may plan organizational change initiatives but not remain in the organization
long enough to see the plans through to completion. This could lead to reduced
support for change initiatives as well as a tendency to declare victory prematurely,
both of which can stie the success of an organizational change program (Winum
et al. 1997). Second, with a short tenure may come the desire to leave ones mark
on the organization. What more assured way to leave a signature than to have
planned the design of a new representation of ones organization? The conse-
quences of engaging in change initiatives for the wrong reasons include:
wasting resources, increased formalization and centralization, as well as inhibited
employee motivation (By et al., 2008). Therefore, it is imperative that organiz-
ational leaders have the best information at their disposal when planning and con-
ducting organizational change initiatives. Organizational simulations may be one
mechanism to help foster increased awareness of the costs and benets of various
organizational change alternatives and these simulations may focus on either
process or structural issues, or both.
Simulation As an Organization Modeling Tool
Researchers can examine process or structural changes by experimenting with the
real organization or with a mathematical model of the organization, the latter
being preferred to minimize disruptions to operations. Linear programming,
network models, queuing theory and simulation provide mathematically sound
solutions for organizational development because they foster real-time experimen-
tation with hypothetical scenarios. Although the former three techniques are math-
ematically superior to the latter, their fabrication and implementation are quite
complicated and require skill sets well beyond those typically found in OD pro-
fessionals. In addition, the simplifying assumptions needed to t these types of
models to organizations can diminish their value. So, although there are numerous
ways to model an organization or system that are benecial for decision-making
throughout organizational change initiatives, simulation remains a practical
method for OD consultants.
Simulation is a multidisciplinary term used in the elds of physics, chemistry,
biology, economics, engineering and the social sciences. A computer simulation
may be static or dynamic, that is, a repeated depiction of a system at one point
in time or over time, respectively. Systems are broken down into discrete and con-
tinuous types and are typically a mix of both. A discrete system changes at denite
points over time, whereas a continuous system changes continuously over time. A
simulation is further categorized into stochastic and deterministic. A stochastic
model incorporates a number of random input variables to produce an overall
random output, this being a statistical estimate of the true output of the system.
A deterministic model contains constant parameters such as a system of differen-
tial equations (Law and Kelton, 2000). Most organizations can be classied as
dynamic, discrete and stochastic, thus most can be modeled using discrete event
simulation (DES).
210 J.B. Lyons et al.
Discrete Event Simulation
Organizations engaged in organizational design initiatives often neglect process
issues and proceed straight to structural changes; however, this neglects the
details of how information ows and how decisions are made within the bounds
of the organization (Neilson et al., 2008). Discrete event simulation is useful in
representing an organization for the purpose of studying and analyzing its
process and information ows. Organizations are a conglomeration of stochastic
relationships so the simplifying assumptions needed to build a mathematical
model of a complex organization typically minimizes the value of the analysis.
A simulation approach, however, allows great exibility in representing the real
system, and allows the testing of different policies, varying parameters, alternate
designs and contingency scenarios. In addition to the benets of a discrete event
simulation tool, an organization that goes through the simulation building process
will gain new understanding into the true operation and function of their organiz-
ation. This alone can provide tremendous value to an organization because it may
promote communication about organizational changes and their desired impact
while facilitating detailed analyses of key relationships or processes within the
organization. Critically attempting to model an organization as a discrete event
simulation requires creativity and an open mind. These lead to an increased
knowledge of the true system and consequently more creative solutions to the
organizations problems.
Many options exist for creating a discrete event simulation. They can be con-
structed by hand or programmed into a general purpose computer language
such as FORTRAN or JAVA, which is typically very time-consuming. Special-
purpose simulation languages are designed to provide a framework for specic
types of simulation applications, but also require signicant time investments.
High-level simulators provide an easier method for building models but sacrice
the exibility of using computer programming languages. A common software
program used to build discrete event simulation models is Arena, which combines
the ease of using high-level templates and the exibility of using general purpose
programming languages. The suppleness to mix and match simulation techniques
within a model makes Arena the tool of choice when building discrete event simu-
lations. There are numerous applications of discrete event simulation in all elds
of study using Arena and other software packages.
Study 1
One of the advantages of simulating a change versus actually engaging in the
change is that organizational leaders can test various organizational alternatives
safely within a simulation with minimal impact on the organization. This was
the case in our rst scenario. This scenario involves an engine repair facility
that was planning to undergo organizational changes including process changes
and structural changes, although the details of these changes were not yet speci-
ed. The authors were asked to create a baseline process model of the engine
repair facility to allow leadership to test various organizational changes
(Table 1). Some of the changes being contemplated by the customer included
Organizational Development Goes Digital 211
analyzing product wait and cycle time based on various organizational structures,
and worker utilization rates based on different structures. The customer was con-
templating moving from a functional organizational structure, in which each
worker is responsible for a particular aspect of the engine repair, to a team-
based structure, in which members would work together on various aspects of
the engine throughout its entire manufacturing process. Further, the customer
was interested in exploring worker utilization rates (the inverse of downtime)
based on the number of desired engines produced per month.
An engine assembly line is one of the most basic discrete event simulation appli-
cations given the stepwise projection through various segmented activities. The
essence of the real system is captured through a high-level view of the engine
shop, as shown in Figure 1. In addition to the processes in Figure 1, there are
many sub-processes within each of the higher level processes. Rather than
making a common mistake to model fastidiously with excessive delity, we
chose to keep the model at this level in order to address the organizational level
issues raised above. Attempting to capture every detail within a system can
often times distract from ones objective when that objective is couched in a
higher level organizational issue.
Table 1. Simulation results for functional versus team-based structure
Structure
Functional Team-based
Average overall wait time per engine (days) 139.48 20.35
Average total system time (days) 158.16 39.15
Maximum number of engines in the system 134 39
Average worker utilization rate .99 .95
Note: The total time simulated was held constant at 3 years, and the desired output was set at 13 engines/month.
Figure 1. High-level process model within the engine repair center.
212 J.B. Lyons et al.
Validation and verication are necessary to ensure a model is accurate and
practical for exploitation (Law, 2008; Sargent, 2008). As such, the current
modeling required extensive interactions with the customer to ensure that the
model represented a realistic depiction of the organization in question. Subject
matter experts were interviewed to ascertain an understanding of the tasks
within the center and the time required to complete the tasks. Several task analyses
were conducted throughout the course of this project to ensure that accurate time
parameters were acquired.
Simulation provides the benet of replicating a system and its processes for long
periods. Simulation modelers are avidly aware of this important quality, however,
many others fail to understand the nature of stochastic processes. Some believe an
adequate method for testing a specic scenario is to try out the scenario for a short
time. Assuming to determine the effects of varying levels of throughput, the
engine shop decided to forego simulation for real-world trial and error experimen-
tation. Without a healthy understanding of stochastic principles, a shop analyst
may attempt to increase the production levels for a 30-day period and examine
the effects on worker utilization, engine wait time (the amount of time the
engine waited for someone to be available to work on it) and total number of
engines produced. From this single experiment, an analyst would extrapolate
information to predict the effects for the next several years. The effects of this
mistake are depicted in Table 2, showing the difference between simulating for
a short period and for an adequate length of time. In summary, the current
model had the following input factors (elements that were manipulated to
explore their impact on outcome variables): total engines produced per month,
organizational structure (functional versus team-based), number of model replica-
tions (30 versus 1) and total time simulated (30 days versus 3 years). In addition,
the following outcome factors were explored: average wait time per step in the
process, average wait time for the full process, total number of engines in the
process and worker utilization rates.
Results
As shown in Table 1, the team-based structure had several advantages relative to
the current functional structure. The team-based structure had lower wait times
Table 2. Simulation results for different production goals
Production goal
7 engines/month 13 engines/month
Average overall wait time per engine (days) 1.62 20.35
Average total system time (days) 20.39 39.15
Number of engines in the system 10 39
Average worker utilization rate .52 .95
Note: The team-based organizational structure was used for both examples and the total time simulated was set to
3 years.
Organizational Development Goes Digital 213
for both the average process step and the total cycle time. Furthermore, the team-
based structure had fewer engines in the process at any given time and a higher
worker utilization rate. Thus, the team-based structure was found to be superior
to the functional structure in all aspects of the current simulation. As shown in
Table 2, differing production goals impacted the outcome of the simulation.
Moving from 7 to 13 engines per month increased wait times for each process
step as well as for the overall cycle time. This is an indication of the implications
of adding increased demand to the shops workload, a jump of six engines per
month appears to be manageable. Further, increasing production goals leads to a
greater number of engines in the system. However, increasing production goals
also resulted in higher worker utilization rates. As shown in Table 3, the amount
of time simulated also played a role. Simulating 3 years as opposed to simulating
30 days resulted in greater wait times for both time indicators, a greater number of
engines in the repair process, and approximately equivalent worker utilization
rates. It is important to consider the consequences of proposed changes in the
context of an adequate planning period, not simply for the short-term.
Discussion
The current simulation explored the relative impact of two organizational struc-
ture options, a team-based versus a functional structure. The results showed that
a team-based structure was more efcient than a functional structure. However,
the authors acknowledge that although the team-based option appears to be
more efcient in the simulation, it may also carry greater training costs because
individuals would need to be procient in a greater number of processes relative
to those in the functional option. In essence, however, these are some of the
trade-offs that must be considered by senior leadership prior to engaging in organ-
izational changes. Simulation, in this case, afforded leadership with an opportu-
nity to explore these possible trade-offs. Research has shown that functional
organization schemes are best for predictable environments because they can
promote efciency and interactions among key work nodes; whereas divisional
schemes are best for unpredictable environments because they promote advanced
skill development and compensatory behaviors among nodes (Hollenbeck et al.,
2002; Moon et al., 2004). The current study demonstrated the opposite;
Table 3. Simulation results for different simulation times
Total time simulated
30 days 1,095 days (3 years)
Average overall wait time per engine (days) 7.83 20.35
Average total system time (days) 26.30 39.15
Number of engines in the system 15 39
Average worker utilization rate .93 .95
Note: The team-based organizational structure was used for both examples and the total desired output was set to
13 engines/month.
214 J.B. Lyons et al.
however, it is notable that the current study was using a highly structured manu-
facturing scenario as opposed to the dynamic decision-making tasks used in past
research. Future research might attempt to inject turbulence into these simulations
to explore how it impacts the relative benets of different structures.
Study 1 also explored the impact of different production goals. A higher pro-
duction goal (13 engines/month) was found to result in longer wait times,
however worker utilization rates were higher relative to the lower production
goal (seven engines/month). These trade-offs are important for organizational
leaders to recognize and evaluate based on their organizational goals. A lower
worker utilization rate may help support surge capabilities when demand
rapidly increases, yet it may foster boredom among employees. By contrast, a
higher worker utilization rate may help to foster employee engagement (Macey
and Schneider, 2008), but may limit surge capabilities. Finally, the current
study explored how different simulation times can impact outcomes. In this
case, a 30-day comparison was made to a 3-year comparison. The 3-year simu-
lation evidenced longer wait times and estimated more than double the engines
in the repair process relative to the 30-day simulation. This is relevant for organ-
izational leaders as they must consider things like warehouse capabilities. In
summary, Study 1 demonstrated the benets of simulation for an exploratory
mechanism in organizational change planning. Here, organizational leaders may
be exploring a variety of alternatives and simulation can provide valuable esti-
mates to feed their strategic planning.
Study 2
Although organizational leaders need support in exploring different organizational
alternatives, they may also need support in analyzing very specic alternatives;
and this was the case in Study 2. The organization for Study 2 was in the
process of deciding which of two organizational structures to adopt for an
ongoing organizational change initiative. Organizational structures outline the dis-
tribution of power, departmentation, shape and degree of specialization within an
organization (Galbraith, 2002). These factors will impact organizations differently
depending on their goals and the constraints under which they operate. Similarly,
structural contingency theory suggests that there is no one organizational structure
that is best for every situation, rather the structure must match the demands of the
environment in order to be optimally effective (Carley and Lin, 1997). Other
research has focused on the trade-offs between centralized and decentralized
organizational structures (Gateau et al., 2007; Leweling and Nissen, 2007). Yet,
centralized versus decentralized cannot capture the gamut of complexity that
abides within organizational structures of actual organizations. This complexity,
however, can be represented using organizational simulation software such as
SimVision.
SimVison is an organizational modeling and simulation tool that allows users to
breakdown and analyze projects of all types ranging from bridge building to
course of action planning. SimVision grew out of research conducted by Stanford
University that started in the 1980s and has continued through the Virtual Design
Team (VDT) software which was designed originally as a project management
Organizational Development Goes Digital 215
tool (Levitt, 2004). The software adopts the perspective that the speed at which
information ows through an organization is driven by its structure or decision
hierarchy (Galbraith, 1974). For example, if an employee needs a decision to be
made by their supervisor, that employee must wait until the supervisor processes
the information, makes a decision and communicates that decision back to the
employee. The number of management layers between decision-makers and the
time available for the decision-makers are likely going to have a signicant
impact on the time it takes for the system as a whole to process information
and make decisions. Thus, the driving forces that foster speed and breadth of infor-
mation ow and decision-making are often rooted in the internal structure and
process of the organization (Galbraith, 2002).
The users of this tool can construct a virtual rendition of the organizations
structure and processes to replicate the leadership hierarchies and information pro-
cesses of the organization. Users can then take the baseline design and modify
inputs such as structural changes and or process changes and explore the differen-
tial impact these changes have on several outcome measures. The most salient
outcome measures include project risk in terms of estimation of project timeline
and identication of information bottlenecks. Again, the software was originally
intended for use as a project management tool and thus the majority of its
outcome variables are focused on time factors for a given set of activities that
need to be performed. Similar to the modeling discussed in Study 1, SimVision
models activities, time spent on activities and the individual actors who have
responsibility for those activities. However, SimVision also attempts to account
for factors such as time spent in meetings, layers of bureaucracy, skill set and
experience of organizational members, and multiple task loadings, all of which
have implications for time. By et al. (2008) hint at the drawbacks of excessive
bureaucracy, The more time spent on administrative tasks and bureaucratic pro-
cedures, the less time spent on doing the real job (p. 26). SimVision represents a
good mechanism to gauge the time required to complete a set of activities in a
stepwise fashion given the management hierarchy of an organization, and this is
where the tool has demonstrated great value to project planners (Levitt, 2004).
More recently, this tool has been applied to continuous work (as opposed to a
set of nite activities), such as that modeled in the current study (Faas et al., 2009).
The comparative capability of SimVision has great utility for researchers and
practitioners who are engaged in organizational redesign activities. Change is
very common in government organizations and the ability to experiment with
change alternatives before engaging in the actual change would provide
decision-makers with better opportunities to discuss various alternatives and
their inherent limitations or advantages. SimVision offers such a capability and,
although it was designed primarily as a project management tool, it has potential
as an organizational change tool as well. The authors have applied this technology
in a DoD organizational change context involving a large command and control
reorganization (Faas et al., 2009). The organization in question was undergoing
a merger where several units from other organizations were being brought into
this parent organization. Leaders in this organization were contemplating three
alternatives and these organizational design options differed to the extent to
which the individual units were integrated.
216 J.B. Lyons et al.
The change management team used the results from a SimVision analysis to
help guide the organizational design for a new command and control center.
Specically, the simulation was used to compare the three alternative organiz-
ational designs (see Figure 2 for an example). The baseline (or current) organiz-
ational design was compared with a low integration option in which the units
shared the same overall leadership but still operated independently, a medium
integration option in which team members would be matrixed into the various
units while maintaining the original organizational units, and a fully integrated
option in which the old units would be disbanded and new teams would be
formed around the functions of the organization.
Results and Discussion
Unfortunately, detailed results of this organizational change cannot be shown for
security reasons, yet high-level ndings can be shared. The fully integrated option
was found to be superior to the other alternatives in terms of total time for task
completion (in this case completing a course of action planning activity) and
the low integration option had the highest time for task completion. This
Figure 2. Example organizational model using SimVision.
Organizational Development Goes Digital 217
information was used by the senior leaders in this organization in making strategic
decisions about the new organizational structure. These ndings speak to the
potential benets of collaboration because the fully integrated teams had immedi-
ate access to the necessary team members for completing the team planning
activity. The change management team also noted that the fully integrated
option may pose signicant change management challenges because it was the
most extreme alternative being considered in terms of training, process and poten-
tial cultural differences between the groups. The inherent trade-offs between
organizational design options should be given extensive consideration by any
change management team. In summary, Study 2 demonstrated the utility of Sim-
Vision as a comparative tool to support high-delity organizational change
options.
Minimizing Trade-offs In Organizational Change
Various organizational designs often involve different trade-offs in terms of their
inherent costs and benets (Galbraith, 2002). Researchers have outlined four
approaches to organizational design/change: mechanistic, motivational, percep-
tual and biological, each with their own unique strengths and limitations
(Campion et al., 2005). For example, the mechanistic approach focuses on indus-
trial engineering principles and emphasizes specialization, simplication and rep-
etition with the goal of increasing efciency. This approach may be most
representative of the simulation approaches discussed above. The drawbacks of
such an approach, however, involve decreased job satisfaction and motivation,
which are the key goals of the motivational approach. The motivational approach
used organizational psychology principles of variety, autonomy and participation
for work design interventions. The limitations of this approach include increased
training costs, heightened stress and possibly increased errors. The authors con-
clude that work design interventions should use a variety of approaches attending
to the various costs and benets of each and that the proper combination of work
design approaches can minimize the trade-offs between the various approaches
(Campion et al., 2005). Research has substantiated this claim by showing that
when organizations consider multiple approaches and try to minimize the limit-
ations of each while maximizing their benets, they can avoid the trade-offs
between different organizational design alternatives (Morgeson and Campion,
2002).
Fostering Effective Change: Simulation and Beyond
Simulation tools may be one way for OD professionals to integrate the rigor of
industrial design into organizational change initiatives. However, organizational
change is highly complex and organizational leaders should use multiple
methods to approach organizational change initiatives. Simulations can be
coupled with traditional OD interventions that may leverage organizational psy-
chology principles to address the complexities that pervade contemporary organ-
izations. In the organizational merger project discussed above, simulation was but
one methodology employed to support the change initiative. Other methods used
218 J.B. Lyons et al.
to complement the simulation included organizational surveys to gauge change
readiness and employee attitudes, focus groups to monitor employee resistance
and engage employees in the change process, process improvement interventions
aiming to reduce non-value-added work activities, strategic communications to
share change-related news and events, as well as success stories for the new
organization, and training/socialization interventions to anchor organizational
changes into the new organizational culture.
There is a robust literature in the organizational change domain which has pin-
pointed several enablers of effective change. These include: establishing a com-
pelling and supported vision for the change (Kotter, 1996), mapping employee
resistance factors and taking action to reduce them (Ostroff, 2006), taking
action and following through after employee surveys (Thompson and Surface,
2009), engaging in change-oriented leadership (Lyons et al., 2009), tracking
and managing employee change readiness (By, 2007) and fostering change inter-
ventions that focus on the specic rational, motivational and emotional needs of
the organization rather than using one-size-ts-all approaches (Winum et al.,
1997). The authors cannot stress enough the fact that while simulation may
offer a novel tool for supporting organizational change initiatives, it is but one
method to support change. Successful change initiatives will incorporate a
balance of organizational design principles and methods, implement vision-
oriented activities, foster leadership support for the change and engage employees
in the change process, as well as understand employee resistance factors and
change readiness among employees.
Conclusion
This article discusses the concept of organizational simulation in the context of
change while providing two applied examples of how simulation technologies
have been applied to organizational change initiatives within the US government
as one aspect of a larger change management program. Research has demonstrated
the benets of attending to the various components of organizational design
(people, process, technology and governance) when engaging in organizational
changes (Garud et al., 2006). Further, case studies have elucidated the notion
that organizational design attempts can be evolutionary and may require constant
modication and tweaking (Madsen et al., 2006). This is consistent with contem-
porary perspectives on organizational change which suggest that a continuous
approach is most effective in generating sustained and positive change
(By, 2007; By et al., 2008). Simulations may help organizational leaders to under-
stand the incremental steps toward change success. Ultimately, multiple interven-
tions are better than one in generating sustained and accepted change (Porras and
Berg, 1978). Tools to enable organizational design, such as the simulation tools
discussed above, represent just one set of tools that organizational psychologists
might employ to support organizational change initiatives within the US govern-
ment. However, these tools may provide invaluable ROI metrics that can be used
to support decision-making among organizational leaders.
When envisioning process change, the tendency to use Lean (i.e. process
improvement) methodologies to determine improved congurations often
Organizational Development Goes Digital 219
outweighs that of more complicated methods, such as discrete event simulation or
analytical solutions. Lean, however, is not without its deciencies, as noted in
Standridge and Marvel (2006). Detty and Yingling (2000) use discrete event simu-
lation to show the benets of implementing lean thinking, essentially an ROI
study. Lean recommendations are initiated in the simulation and compared against
the baseline operations, thus providing foresight in the form of efciency-based
predictions. Any organization that has implemented lean manufacturing and
ignored simulation should consider a change to their technical approach. Further-
more, any organizational consultant who relies solely on simulation should
consider the gamut of other drivers of organizational change success. Thus, once
again, multiple approaches and strategies may be more effective than just one
when attempting to conduct complex organizational changes. Businesses typically
have all the necessary data for an analyst to rapidly construct and validate a
simulation because much of the data used for lean manufacturing is used for simu-
lation. To implement one of these techniques devoid of the other is inefcient and
wasteful, the two reasons these techniques were fashioned in the rst place.
Ultimately, simulation is an underutilized method among organizational con-
sultants. This is not surprising given that many such consultants are psychologists,
with an inherent bias toward organizational psychology-oriented methods (action
research, change management, etc.). However, if used in conjunction with other
more traditional organizational change methods, simulation can be a useful tool
for applied researchers and consultants. Although the term simulation may
appear precarious to some psychologists, many may nd that there are available
tools that do not require a computer science background to use effectively.
References
Barlow, C.B. and Batteau, A. (2000) Organizational change in the organization, Air Force Journal of Logistics,
24, pp. 1822.
By, R.T. (2007) Ready or not, Journal of Change Management, 7, pp. 311.
By, R.T., Diefenbach, T. and Klarner, P. (2008) Getting organizational change right in public services: the case of
European higher education, Journal of Change Management, 8, pp. 2135.
Campion, M.A., Mumford, T.V., Morgeson, F.P. and Nahrgang, J.D. (2005) Work redesign: eight obstacles and
opportunities, Human Resource Management, 44, pp. 367390.
Carley, R.M. and Lin, Z. (1997) A theoretical study of organizational performance under information distortion,
Management Science, 43, pp. 976997.
Cascio, W.F. (1995) Whiter industrial and organizational in a changing world of work, American Psychologist,
50, pp. 928939.
Detty, R.B. and Yingling, J.C. (2000) Quantifying benets of conversion to lean manufacturing with discrete
event simulation: a case study, International Journal of Production Research, 2, pp. 429445.
Faas, P., Swindler, S.D., Lyons, J.B., Levitt, R., Ramsey, M. and Vincent, P. (2009) Organizational modeling and
simulation in a planning organization. Paper presented at the 14th Annual International Command and
Control Research and Technology Symposium. Washington, DC, June.
Galbraith, J.R. (1974) Organizational design: an information processing view, Interfaces, 4, pp. 2836.
Galbraith, J.R. (2002) Designing Organizations: An Executive Guide to Strategy, Structure, And Process
(San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass).
Garud, R., Kumaraswamy, A. and Sambamurthy, V. (2006) Emergent by design: performance and transformation
at Infosys Technologies, Organization Science, 17, pp. 277286.
Gateau, J.B., Leweling, T.A., Looney, J.P. and Nissen, M.E. (2007) Hypothesis testing of edge organizations:
modeling the C2 organizational design space, in Proceedings of the International Command and Control
Research and Technology Symposium, pp. 129, New Port, RI, June.
220 J.B. Lyons et al.
Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1976) Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory, Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 16, pp. 250279.
Hollenbeck, J.R., Moon, H., Ellis, A.P. J., West, B.J., Ilgen, D.R., Sheppard, L., Porter, C.O. L. H. and Wagner,
J.A. (2002) Structural contingency theory and individual differences: examination of external and internal
personteam t, Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, pp. 599606.
Huffman, A.H., Adler, B., Dolan, C.A. and Castro, C.A. (2005) The impact of operations tempo on turnover
intentions of army personnel, Military Psychology, 17, pp. 175202.
Karoly, L.A. (2007) Forces shaping the future U.S. workforce and workplace: implications for 21st century work,
Testimony presented before the House Education and Labor Committee, February, (Santa Monica, CA:
RAND Corp).
Klinger, D. and Klein, G. (1999) Application of a team training model is the key to the increased efciency of an
emergency response team, Ergonomics in Design, July, pp. 2025.
Kotter, J.P. (1996) Leading Change (Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press).
Law, A.M. (2008) How to build valid and credible simulation models, in: S.J. Mason, R.R. Hill, L. Monch,
O. Rose, T. Jefferson and J.W. Fowler (eds), Proceedings of the 2008 Winter Simulation Conference,
pp. 3947 (Piscataway, NJ: IEEE).
Law, A.M. and Kelton, D.W. (2000) Simulation Modeling and Analysis, 3rd edn. (New York: McGraw-Hill).
Levitt, R.E. (2004) Computational modeling of organizations comes of age, Computational and Mathematical
Organization Theory, 10(2), pp. 127145.
Leweling, T.A. and Nissen, M.E. (2007) Hypothesis testing of edge organizations: laboratory experimentation
using the ELICIT multiplayer intelligence game. Proceedings of the International Command and Control
Research Technology Symposium, pp. 134, Newport, RI.
Lyons, J.B., Swindler, S.D. and Offner, A. (2009) The impact of leadership on change readiness in the military,
Journal of Change Management, 9, pp. 459475.
Macey, W.H. and Schneider, B. (2008) The meaning of employee engagement, Industrial and Organizational
Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, pp. 330.
Madsen, P., Desai, V., Roberts, K. and Wong, D. (2006) Mitigating hazards through continuing design: the birth
and evolution of a pediatric intensive care unit, Organizational Science, 17, pp. 239248.
Moon, H., Hollenbeck, J.R., Humphrey, S.E., Ilgen, D.R., West, B., Ellis, A.P. J. and Porter, C.O. L. H. (2004)
Asymmetric adaptability: dynamic teamstructures as one-way streets, Academy of Management Journal, 47,
pp. 681695.
Morgeson, F.P. and Campion, M.A. (2002) Minimizing tradeoffs when redesigning work: Evidence from a
longitudinal quasi-experiment, Personnel Psychology, 55, pp. 589612.
Neilson, G.L., Martin, K.L. and Powers, E. (2008) The secrets to successful strategy execution, Harvard Business
Review, June, pp. 6170.
Ostroff, F. (2006) Change management in government, Harvard Business Review, May, pp. 141147.
Pellettiere, V. (2006) Organization self-assessment to determine the readiness and risk for planned change,
Organization Development Journal, 24, pp. 3843.
Porras, J.I. and Berg, P.O. (1978) The impact of organizational development, Academy of Management Review, 3,
pp. 249266.
Porras, J.I. and Silvers, R.C. (1991) Organizational development and transformation, Annual Reviewof Psychology,
42, pp. 5178.
Sargent, R.G. (2008) Verication and validation of simulation models, in: S.J. Mason, R.R. Hill, L. Monch,
O. Rose, T. Jefferson and J.W. Fowler (eds), Proceedings of the 2008 Winter Simulation Conference,
pp. 157169 (Piscataway, NJ: IEEE).
Standridge, C. and Marvel, J. (2006) Why lean needs simulation, in: L.F. Perrone, F.P. Wieland, J. Liu, B.G.
Lawson, D.M. Nicol and R.M. Fujimoto (eds), Proceedings of the 2006 Winter Simulation Conference,
pp. 19071913 (Piscataway, NJ: IEEE).
Thompson, L.F. and Surface, E.A. (2009) Promoting favorable attitudes toward personnel surveys: the role of
follow-up, Military Psychology, 21, pp. 139161.
Winum, P., Ryterband, E. and Stephenson, P. (1997) Helping organizations change: a model for guiding
consultation, Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 49, pp. 616.
Organizational Development Goes Digital 221
Copyright of Journal of Change Management is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.