What did you notice about the nature of the data a

What did you notice about the nature of the data as you read these chapters?

The primary theme of the paper is What did you notice about the nature of the data as you read these chapters? in which you are required to emphasize its aspects in detail. The cost of the paper starts from $99 and it has been purchased and rated 4.9 points on the scale of 5 points by the students. To gain deeper insights into the paper and achieve fresh information, kindly contact our support.

Diagnosing the Need for Organizational Change and Transformation


Module 3 - Home Diagnosing the Need for Organizational Change and/or Transformation Modular Learning Objectives By the end of this module, the student shall be able to satisfy the following outcomes expectations: • Case o Apply the Burke-Litwin Model of Organizational Performance and Change or the Tushman-O`Reilly Congruence Model as a diagnostic tool to two cases o Describe the diagnostic factors that are related to "organizational climate," and how those factors relate to the Burke-Litwin model o Identify relevant sources of data for an organizational diagnosis Module 3 - Background Required Materials: Organizational Diagnosis - Tools And Processes The following classic article, available in the JSTOR database from our TUI Cyber Library home page, provides an excellent introduction to organizational diagnosis and intervention: Tichy, N. M.; Hornstein, H.; & Nisberg, J. N. (1976). Participative organization diagnosis and intervention strategies: Developing emergent pragmatic theories of change. The Academy of Management Review, 1(2), 109-120. (ProQuest Document ID# 84852521) Dr. D. Dutta Roy, Department of Humanities and Social Sciences of the Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, provides a succinct overview of organizational diagnosis, focusing on both the tools and the processes employed: Roy, D. D. (n.d.). Organizational diagnosis. Retrieved February 18, 2010 from http://www.isical.ac.in/~ddroy/odiag.html Required Materials: Action Research - Foundation for Planned Organizational Change Processes Kurt Lewin is considered one of the fathers of the fields of social psychology and organizational development, and of the action research approach. The following overview provides a good introduction to Lewin`s work: Smith, M. K. (2001). Kurt Lewin: Groups, experiential learning and action research. Retrieved February 18, 2010 from http://www.infed.org/thinkers/et-lewin.htm Smith, M. K. (2007). Action Research. Retrieved February 18, 2010 from http://www.infed.org/research/b-actres.htm Required Materials: A Practical Guide to Diagnosing Organizational Culture Please read pages 121-128 of the following book, which is available in our TUI Net Library: Tushman, M. L.; & O`Reilly, C. A. (1997). Winning Through Innovation: A Practical Guide to Leading Organizational Change and Renewal. Boston: Harvard Business School. To gain access to Net Library you must use the link found at the TUI Cyber Library: http://library.tuiu.edu.Use the Net Library Link and provide your TUI e-mail login. Now select the link for the Net Library Home Page. You will now need to create your own Net Library account. Use the link named Create Your Own Account just above the TUI Globe: • Your Net Library username is: Create your own • Your Net Library password is: Create your own It is very important to view the instructions provided for Net Library on your New Student Welcome CD or online at: http://cd.tourou.edu/welcome. NOTE: Please read the book on screen only and DO NOT check it out for extended use. Multiple students may view the book simultaneously, but if you check it out, it will not be available to anyone else while it is checked out to you! If you do not have access to Internet for long enough to be able to read it on-screen, please email your professor to work out an alternative. Required Materials: Example of an Extensive Organizational Diagnosis On February 1, 2003, the Space Shuttle Columbia was destroyed and the lives of all seven of its crew were lost. Within two hours of the loss of signal from the Columbia, a commission was formed to investigate, thanks to procedures that had been established following the Challenger disaster 17 years before that. That commission, known as the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) conducted an extensive process of diagnosis of the causes of the Columbia disaster. The results of an organizational diagnosis are generally shared during the "feedback" phase of the action research cycle. This typically occurs first during a live session with senior leaders, and may be followed by a formal report and information sessions with other organizational stakeholders. In government organizations, such formal reports are often made public. The CAIB report provides an excellent example of the results of a complex, whole system diagnosis. Please read the following sections of the report, which you will analyze in this module`s case study: Columbia Accident Investigation Board ( 2003, August). Retrieved February 18, 2010 from http://www.nasa.gov/columbia/caib/PDFS/VOL1/PART02.PDF • Chapter 5: FROM CHALLENGER TO COLUMBIA, sections 5.1-5.8 • Chapter 6: DECISION MAKING AT NASA, skim section 6.3 (beginning on p. 140) through p. 166, then read the full summary (pp. 166-172) • Chapter 7: THE ACCIDENT`S ORGANIZATIONAL CAUSES 7.1-7.6 Optional Materials The following site provides links to excellent resources on not only the life and work of Kurt Lewin, but also on Action Research, including short case examples: Retrieved February 18, 2010 from http://www.sonoma.edu/users/d/daniels/lewinlinks.html Organizational surveys are often used to diagnose the "health" of the organization (note the use of the medical metaphor - with the organization as "patient" - this is a common metaphor in use in the field of OD). Today, many standardized instruments are available for use, although they should generally be administered by a researcher or consultant with the relevant expertise. Organizational "climate" is a well developed concept that includes a range of organizational characteristics thought to reflect the overall health of the system. Module 3 - Case IN MEMORY OF THE COLUMBIA FLIGHT CREW Rick D. Husband, Commander William C. McCool, Pilot Michael P. Anderson, Payload Commander David M. Brown, Mission Specialist Kalpana Chawla, Mission Specialist Laurel Blair Salton Clark, Mission Specialist Ilan Ramon, Payload Specialist Jules F. Mier, Jr., Debris Search Pilot Charles Krenek, Debris Search Aviation Specialist For this mod 3 case, use the same diagnostic model that you chose in your mod 2 SLP assignment - either the Burke-Litwin or Tushman-O`Reilly model, to organize and categorize the CAIB data and findings (see the Background readings) in a 5-6 page paper, not including cover and reference pages. Your paper should look something like this: 1. Introduce the model and the case (1-2 paragraphs) 2. Organize and categorize CAIB data and findings using the model that you have chosen (2-3 pages). Use headings and sub-headings according to your model so that the structure of your analysis is clear. Since data might be associated with one or more categories, please explain your rationale for your categorization choices. 3. You may find it helpful to create a diagram or outline to summarize your assessment based on the model that you chose to work with. If you do, this should take no more than one page, and provide a quick overview of your analysis. 4. Discuss which data and findings you feel are most critical, and why (1/2-1 page). 5. What did you notice about the nature of the data as you read these chapters? For example, how and when were archival records used? What about interviews? (1/2 page) 6. Conclude with an assessment of the utility and relevance of the model that you chose in this case. In what ways was it helpful? In what ways was it not? (1/2 page) Please write your analysis in a paper of not more than 6 pages, excluding cover page and any references, and upload it to CourseNet before the end of this module. Assignment Expectations Your paper will be evaluated on the following points: • Precision - Does the paper address the question(s) or task(s)? • Clarity - Is the writing clear and the concepts articulated properly? Are paraphrasing and synthesis of concepts the primary means of response to the questions, or are excessive use of quotations how thoughts are conveyed? Are headings included in all papers greater than 2 pages? • Breadth - Is the full breadth of the subject addressed? • Depth - Does the paper address the topic in sufficient depth? • Grammar, spelling and vocabulary - Is the paper written well - does the grammar, spelling, and vocabulary appropriate to graduate level work? • Referencing (citations and references) - Does the paper use citations and quotation marks when appropriate? • Critical thinking - Is the subject thought about critically, i.e., accurately, logically, relevantly, and precisely? Please note the following tips or suggestions: • You may use a simple diagram (such as a Fishbone diagram (Force Field Analysis) or a process visual) to highlight important factors. However, do not use the diagram in lieu of valuable analysis (or to take up valuable writing space) - it should be in addition to your paper of 4-5 pages of analysis. • Do not use every piece of data in the case. • Cite any sources that you use in your work. • Include a cover page and reference page, in addition to the 4-5 pages of analysis described above. • Include headings for all papers greater than 2 pages (basically all papers) • Include citations and quotation marks for direct quotes of more than 5 words, and citations for that information which you have "borrowed" or paraphrased from other sources. • Follow TUI Guidelines for well-written papers (Click here if you are unsure of what those guidelines are).

Diagnosing the Need for Organizational Change and TransformationName:Institution:Course:Date:In the first day of February 2003, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) lost the Columbia space shuttle, which disintegrated while trying to reenter the earth`s atmosphere. Following this tragedy and with the backdrop of the earlier Challenger disaster, NASA was forced to evaluate its organization culture and try to bring in some changes in order to avert future accidents. Following the Columbia disaster, NASA began an internal investigation to find out what was the cause of the accident. A mechanical fault was determined to be the cause of the accident (Guthrie & Shayo, 2005). An external investigation was started conducted by the Columbia Accident Investigation Review Board (CAIB) in order to find out the different approaches that could have been employed at NASA in order to prevent such an incident from occurring again. The paper seeks to discuss the efforts made by NASA to change its organization following the investigation into the Colombia shuttle disaster.Because of the accident, the CAIB investigation revealed a number of issues aside from the technical that, in a way, contributed to the accident. The committee found that the organizational safety climate of NASA as well as its culture contributed to the accident as much as did the mechanical failure. A consulting firm, Behavioral Science Technology, Inc (BST) was contracted to help the management at NASA create initiatives to address the issues raised in the findings. The paper will use the Burke-Litwin model in analyzing the data presented by CAIB, which led to the Columbia disaster. The paper will review the work unit climate, leadership and the structure of the organization leading up to the Columbia shuttle disaster.LeadershipAccording to Burke, leadership will provide direction to the organization and employees that they can follow. He states that leadership will work to serve, persuade ...
100% Plagiarism Free & Custom Written
Tailored to your instructions