Organizational development models and frameworks

Business

Selecting an OD Model

Determining which OD model should be used to examine a firm will require consideration of the different available OD models and assessment of which is most likely to meet the needs of the analyst. Invariably, whichever model is chosen, the quality the analysis will be based on the quality of the input information and skills of the analyst, rather than simply reliant on the tool itself (Mintzberg et al., 2011).

There are a number of choices. The 7 S's model has some advantages; with the seven factors this provides a relatively simplistic approach towards examining an organization, with the different factors providing a comprehensive analytical framework. However, the structure does not provide for a high level of integration of the different factors, so may not be the optimal model. A similar fragmented approach to different factors may be seen in many of the other models, from the more simplistic PEST and SWOT analysis, or they may have more limited application, such as the force field analysis of Lewin.

One approach which overcomes many of these disadvantages provides a more integrated comprehensive model is that of the Nadler-Tushman Congruence Model (Falletta, 2005). This congruence model is focused on assessing processes within an organization, and the way in which inputs are transformed into outputs as they go through the organization. The application of the model requires an examination of the different types of input which go into the company, which are examined as they move through the company until they become outputs. The different types of input include physical resources that are utilized, as well as intangible resources that are also important to the organization, for example intellectual human capital, strategy, and the way in which the organizations' history and culture impact on the processes (Falletta, 2005).

The throughputs which lead to the outputs are examined through the dimensions of the different process types; these include the collective processes as well as individual processes (Falletta, 2005). The examination of the throughputs also incorporates the informal, as well as formal, processes or arrangements that are in place (Falletta, 2005). For example, the formal influences may be examined by looking at the defined processes which are part of production or the provision of services, the informal influences will require consideration of aspects such as the employment relationship, and the internal politics which impact on the relationships between the various business units departments (Falletta, 2005).

The outputs will be examined by looking at aspect such as the functional outputs, which include the planned and desired outputs, such as production, and the way in which predetermined goals are met (Falletta, 2005). The outputs will also need to include other types of outputs, for example those which may not be planned, and intangible outputs, such as employee behavior, and the way in which employees attitudes and values which impact on the workplace or influenced (Falletta, 2005).

A significant advantage of this model is the way in which the different aspects of the organization are integrated; it is the organization and its processes which are viewed in a more holistic manner, and while each element may be argued as individually examined, there is a natural progression to examine inputs, throughputs, and outputs. The framework provides a basis for the examination of the firm, and while there are categories for each of the various stages at the input, throughput, and output steps, it maybe argued these are far less constrained compared to other models, such as the 7 S's; where shared values, strategy, structure, systems, staff, style, and skills are assessed, but to not have the same natural flow from one element to another.