Search results

Change management (CM) and project management (PM) literatures examine the key roles (change agent, project manager, project or change sponsor) played during projects or changes only from their respective points of view. They do so even in cases where projects and changes occur at the same time – or are so-called change projects. In such cases, effective management should utilize both scientific fields’ bodies of knowledge (BoK). The purpose of this paper is to unfold how and in which domain(s) typical roles of the two disciplines correspond to each other.

This paper is a systematic, bi-disciplinary meta-review that simultaneously studies relevant literature on roles performed during projects and changes. The common domain of CM and PM was identified; the systematic review and comparison of role definitions followed.

This paper examines and illustrates the correspondence of 7 CM and 14 PM roles; e.g., “sponsor” refers to the same role and “change agent” and “project manager” are corresponding ones, referring to the same role up to a certain degree.

This paper does not provide an exhaustive overview of various instances of different role (and stakeholder) interpretations.

Findings should facilitate the better management of changes that require CM-type and PM-type capabilities and actions.

As a result of the meta-review, two CM roles were re(de)fined. Linking PM and CM roles provides common ground on which practitioners of both fields can rely. A step-by-step tool for the identification of such cases in practice, when both types of roles should be played and both BoK can be utilized complementarily, was developed.

This study aims to answer the question of what characterizes organizations with future-potential, and with the help of a model introduced in this study, the authors propose what interventions can be identified and which improvements need to be made in traditional organizations so that they meet the requirements of future-potentiality.

A systematic literature review was conducted to identify management interventions. Citation and co-word analyses were also performed. Content analysis of 311 journal articles from the past five years was performed taking into account relevant keywords, and disciplinary narrowing was also applied. These articles were used to identify knowledge that could be used to suggest micro-, meso- and macro-level changes.

To develop the future potential of organizations, three organizational levels must be separated. The first is the micro level of relations between leaders and employees, where equity is a key value for future potentiality. It should be emphasized that not all employees’ organizational commitment is equally important for organizations with future potential, and leaders should strengthen their commitment according to individual needs and opportunities. The second is the meso level, where the decisive value is organizational moderation, and this suggests that a careful and restrained development is needed both in satisfying consumer needs and in innovation. The third is the macro level, where the defining value is responsibility and sustainability, which are necessary for achieving a state where the active development of national culture becomes possible.

Contrary to the authors’ expectations, it has been found that there are only a few studies dealing with change management for the purpose of achieving a future potential mode of organizational operation; thus, the results can be considered new and will contribute to the development of a cross-section of change management and future studies.