Based on the simulation, change management practices is the key factor to the success of the many organizations. At the same time, it can be a source of failure if it is implemented ineffectively. The Experience Change helps in learning how to be successful in projects initiative changes. In this case, the simulation was to assess the situation GlobalTech of building a change plan and implementing successfully for the company to achieve a tipping point of 60% buy-in. With a good understanding of the case, I engaged a team of four and tried to simulate. Two members of the team were LP/HA while the other two members were HA/LP. Within a budget of $500,000 and limited days of 78 weeks, we were supposed to understand how to come up with a solution (change initiative) (Dubois, 2018) . Every task was allocated its cost and number of days. The simulator was responding after executing every task. The usefulness of the task in solving the problem was based on an increased approval. The change initiative can only be accepted if the process takes 60% buy-in.
Among the things that I did correctly is the use of tools. With the confidence of getting it done, I was to select the tasks and execute it instead of ordering. With this, the first simulation helped in moving along with the simulation. Most of the points were gained due to the ability to maintain a sense of urgency. To demonstrate how bad things were, I added a video which also helped in improving the buy-in rate. The restructuring effort succeeded as I showed clearly why it was required initially. From this point onwards, the team reached the maximum number of patient and thus, there was no need of attempting different things to get something happens. However, my team could not get to 60%.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
On the other hand, there was also a part that the simulation was conducted incorrectly. First, a lot of time was wasted on the intended schedule of reordering steps. This turned out to be a bad user of making a simulation. The changes on reordering would occur randomly and after much has been lost, I realized that ordering had less importance. Therefore, any task would have been selected by simply clicking a button on the page at any time (Allred and Gerardi, 2017). Based on the learning experience, I tried to execute different tactics. Some of these tactics include Enlist, Understand, Motivate, Develop the vision/strategy, Act, and Communicate. Most of the time, I consulted other team members on the task to be performed. On reaching 59% buy-in, our simulation ran out of money. From this failure, I made several observations. First, it was important to understand the need for change and pick out the best tasks. The simulation had started well but it later started to lose the buy-in percent. I think the team members I was working with were not known to lead the change (Kwok et al. 2018) . Also, I picked too many changes, resistors, and helpers. I only came to learn later that the simulation only required 1 helper, 1 changer, and 2 resistors. Most of the team members were onlookers. As a result, the scores regarding strategy task and vision were better.
A gain of 59% was the best before starting going back down again. At this point, I felt that the core task is to understand the steps. However, the basic and most important part was to arrange the best sequence which builds steps to get to Enlist, Understand, Motivate, Develop the vision/strategy, Act, and Communicate. My major learning from the simulation exercise was that although the case was well understood, most of the time was spent on one page tending to agree.
References
Allred, K., & Gerardi, N. (2017). Computer Simulation for Pain Management Education: A Pilot Study. Pain Management Nursing , 18 (5), 278-287.
Dubois, G. (2018). Modeling and Simulation: Challenges and Best Practices for Industry . CRC Press.
Kwok, P. K., Chan, B. K., & Lau, H. Y. (2018, January). A Virtual Collaborative Simulation-based Training System. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Computer Modeling and Simulation (pp. 258-264). ACM.
