Implementation Approaches for Project Planning

Author(s): Paul C. Nutt

Source: The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 8, No. 4 (Oct., 1983), pp. 600-611
Published by: Academy of Management
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/258261
Accessed: 08-07-2019 08:22 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/258261?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to The Academy of Management Review

This content downloaded from 212.21.46.214 on Mon, 08 Jul 2019 08:22:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
0Academy of Management Review, 1983, Vol. 8, No. 4, 600-611.

Implementation Approaches
for Project Planning1
PAUL C. NUTT
Ohio State University

This paper relates the project planning process and imnplementation. An

imnplementation approach is determined bv the mnanager's choice of power
bases to be applied and techniques to he used to enhance the prospects of
plan adoption. Sixteen planning environmenets are defined by the degree
of centralization, amnouint of complexitv, tvpe of production, and emphasis
on ef/ficiency. A framewvork is proposed that suggests an imnplemnentation
approach for each of the environments.

Churchman (1975) and many others have called at-
tention to the "implementation problem": the all too
frequent failure to create change after seemingly
viable plans have been developed. This paper takes
the position that implementation prospects improve
when the project planning process is linked to im-
plementation and when an implementation approach
is tailored to fit the internal environment of an
organization. This position is similar to that taken
by Emshoff (1978), who contends that planning must
be part of a larger process of change keyed to the
organization's culture.
There are many treatments of implementation in
the literature based on cognitive style (Churchman
& Schainblatt, 1965), incentives (Daft & Becker,
1978), predicting when change will occur (March &
Simon, 1958), designing organizations in which
change prospects are enhanced (Burns & Stalker,
1971), and describing an environment in which in-
novation seems likely (Zaltman, Duncan, & Holbek,
1973). None of these treatments indicates how to
select an implementation approach. This paper at-
tempts to fill this void by suggesting implementation
approaches for environments in which planning takes
place.
To select an implementation approach, the inm-
plementating agent assesses climate. Climate is
defined by four organizational or work unit charac-
teristics: centralization, complexity, production, and
efficiency. All combinations of favorable and tin-
'The author wishes to thank Richard A. Grover for suggesting
the basis of power formulation and showing how it can be ap-
plied to implementation.
favorable conditions for these characteristics define
16 archetype environments. Each environment is
assessed, using logic to determine an implementation
approach best suited to aid in the management of the
planning for that environment. These proposals iden-
tify propositions that provide a source of hypotheses
for future research and guides to select an approach
until research findings are available.
The framework deals with project planning and in-
ternal factors that define organizational climate. Ex-
ternal factors are not considered-in part, to simplify
the framework. As a consequence, the framework is
limited to project planning, projects defined by per-
formance gaps (Nutt, 1979a) and by strategic plan-
ning, and to planning within an organization. Im-
plementation for strategic planning requires a dif-
ferent formulation because strategy formation is
quite dependent on external factors, such as the
nature of competition. In project planniing, external
factors can be incorporated into process objectives
and used as key considerations in selecting among
plan options, making formal treatment less impor-
tant. Consortium or multiorganizational planning
(Nutt, 1979b), although important, is beyond the
scope of this paper.
Planning and Implementation
Project planning can be used to devise new pro-
ducts, services, internal operations, or organizational
policies. The process has four stages: formulation,
conceptualization, detailing, and evaluation (Nutt,
1982; Nutt, 1983).

600

This content downloaded from 212.21.46.214 on Mon, 08 Jul 2019 08:22:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Planning Process
for plan adoption by shaping and guiding the plan-
Formulation clarifies the problem stipulation that
ning process, initially offering diagnostic informa-
activates the process. Stipulations usually are framed
tion and later providing feasibility tests.
as performance gaps, discrepancies between expec-
tations and current performance. Stage one improves
ity screen is provided at each stage of the process.
the understanding of current performance and refines
the description of performance norms to set objec-
the Nominal Group Technique uses clients to define
tives. Techniques such as nominal groups, brain-
storming, Delphi, and stakeholder analysis are used
to carry out the formulation stage. Conceptualiza-
tion identifies and frames key options for the plan-
ning process to consider. Planning techniques such
ticular groups in each process stage. Such processes
as morphology, relevance trees, input-output, and
scenarios often are used. The detailing stage
elaborates these representations into potentially
viable plans. Constructive techniques, such as systems
design and systems analysis, are used to sketch plan
features; and interrogative techniques, such as inter-
pretive structural modeling and operations research,
are used to reveal ways in which the plan can be im-
proved. Evaluation identifies the features of each
alternative under consideration, providing a basis to
select among the alternatives or to rule some out.
Implementation puts into practice the recommen-
dations that stem from planning. By treating im-
plementation as a stage of the planning process,
techniques used to gain plan acceptance become an
integral part of the planning process. This links plan-
ning and implementation in the process.
Managing the Process
Implementation can be tied to planning through
change agent, planner, and participation managed
processes. Each shapes the planning process in unique
ways. A "planner managed" process carries out
stages one to four (formulation, conceptualization,
detailing, and evaluation) and follows them with an
attempt to "sell" the plan. The planner takes a
leadership role. The plan's logic and inherent ra-
tionale are used by the planner to argue for its adop-
tion. The sales approach has been widely criticized
(Schultz & Slevin, 1975), but it also has been used
successfully.
"Change agent managed" planning makes imple-
mentation the first step in the process to guide the
remaining planning stages. Plan formulation, con-
ceptualization, detailing, and evaluation are carried
out as users are guided through a process that points
out the need for change and reinforces the features
of the plan as a viable solution. The change agent
typically is a prestigious leader who paves the way
In "participation managed" planning, a feasibil-
Participation is co-optative in nature. For example,
problems and experts to propose solutions, which
creates certain imperatives for change (Delbecq &
Van de Ven, 1971). Planning activities that demand
acceptance often require the participation of par-
can develop a substantial momentum, which makes
plan adoption quite likely.
Implementation Approaches
An implementation approach is made up of a
technique buttressed by the use of power to en-
courage plan adoption. Power bases and techniques
are applied to aid the implementor in managing the
planning process.
Implementation Techniques
Implementation techniques can be unilateral,
manipulative, and delegated. In Table 1, each is link-
ed to ways to manage the process. A unilateral ap-
proach requires the implementor merely to announce
the plan and to specify the behavior needed to com-
ply. Unilateral techniques can be used in either the
planner or the change agent managed planning pro-
cess. Manipulative techniques are more subtle, seek-
ing to illuminate a problem and then steer users
toward new practices. These techniques must be ap-
plied through a change agent managed process. Par-
ticipative techniques permit those affected to help
formulate the terms of the plan, hoping to co-opt the
participants. Participation managed planning is in-
volvement based, using a shared or delegated role for
participants to enhance plan acceptance. Participa-
tion is voluntary in a participative technique but man-
datory in a manipulative technique, making these
processes incompatible.
Unilateral Techniques. The implementor can draw
on his/her power and announce the change overtly,
prescribing the expected behavior. Unilateral tech-
niques can be used with either planner or change
agent planning. They move through four phases. The
next phase is enacted if a former phase fails to achieve
the desired results. The implementor begins by issu-

601

This content downloaded from 212.21.46.214 on Mon, 08 Jul 2019 08:22:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Table I
Types of Implementation Techniques
Type Tvpical Techniques Process
Unilateral Edict, replacement, Change agent managed
or structural
changes
Demonstration Planner or change agent
Persuasion Planner or change agent
Manipulative Game scenarios Change agent managed
Unfreeze-refreeze Change agent managed
Delegated Participation in plan Participation managed
development (in-
volvement based)
ing an official edict by memoranda, formal presen-
tation, or on-the-job instruction. Edicts are task-
oriented, assuming that people are rational and will
see how the change benefits the organization.
If problems are encountered, demonstration and
persuasion (Greiner, 1970) are used. Attempts are
made to show the reticent that the plan works and
(implicitly) that it falls within the authority of the
implementor to require plan adoption. When this
demonstration is made, acceptance often rises.
When people remain reticent, or fail to comply,
stronger measures are required. According to Greiner
(1970), a replacement approach follows the edict and
removes people who are blocking implementation.
There are two types of premises behind the replace-
ment tactic. First, making examples of a few may
coax others into line. Second, problems may be
centered in just a few people who irrationally will
resist the change and must be removed. If replace-
ment fails, the implementor can resort to structural
changes in the organization. The formal organiza-
tion's or unit's structure is redesigned so that people
who are likely to support the change are moved into
key positions within the structure.
Manipulative Techniques. Two manipulative ap-
proaches are discussed: the game scenario and the
unfreeze-refreeze technique. Either can be used in a
change agent managed process. The game scenario
(Bardach, 1977) construes the implementation pro-
cess as a game. The metaphor of a game is used to
identify the players so that their stakes, conditions
for winning, and definitions of fraud (which indicates
notions of fair play) can be visualized. Any or all of
these factors may come into play during a particular
implementation attempt. Games are described to
dramatize opportunities to distort the process of im-
plementation and to provide insight into how to deal
with each type of game. Games have been classified
602
This content downloaded from 212.21.46.214 on Mon, 08 Jul 2019 08:22:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
by Bardach as resource based, objective modifying,
evasion of control, and incomplete adoption. The
games in each of these categories are summarized in
Table 2.
To carry out the game scenario the implementor
first looks for games that might be played, identify-
ing the players and their stakes. The consequences
to key groups are traced out to identify who might
object and why. A scenario is written to describe what
must be changed to make the program acceptable to
various parties. The process is summarized in Exhibit
1. The scenario is used to build a coalition that the
implementing agent can manage (Thompson, 1967).
The administrator guides the coalition into decisions
that move or divide resources in such a way as to
maximize plan support.
The unfreeze-refreeze technique stemmed from the
work of Lewin and Schein and has been shaped over
the years by OD specialists (Huse, 1975). The pro-
cedure has three steps: unfreezing, changing, and
refreezing. Unfreezing introduces a disequilibrium in-
to a current situation seen as stable. The change step
(which encompasses planning stages one to four) pro-
vides new information and ideas so that those af-
fected can form new perceptions, gain new skills, and
adopt a new set of behavioral patterns. To refreeze,
these new behavioral patterns are reinforced to create
a new stability. Four change mechanisms are used
by the change agent to take the implementation group
through each step. These factors are objectives, social
ties, self-esteem, and motives. The change agent acts
on each factor during each step of the process.
Planning makes objectives increasingly specific.
The desired movement is away from self-doubt
toward heightened self-esteem. Motives for change
initially are external and gradually become initernaliz-
ed as the new behaviors become intrinsically reward-
ing. Dalton (1970) contends that the internalizing
process has three phases: new structure, application
and improvisation, and verification. New structure
provides a new way to think about one's contribu-
tions and the organization's response to these con-
tributions. Application often leads to improvisation,
which creates an identification with the new scheme.
Experienced based verification is the key to successful
implementation. If the plan is tested and found to
work on the performer's turf, it gains in acceptance.
Delegative Techniques. Delegative techniques call
for partial (or full) involvement of those affected by
planning, seeking to co-opt them. Acceptance is pro-
 Table 2
A Summary of Implementation Gamesa
Tvpe Potential Players Stakes Rules
Resource based games
1. Easy money Service providers who see a way to Size of the utility surplus Utility stirpluses are taken by the
offer services by cutting quality cleverest
2. Spend more-get more Managers of nonperformance Potential slack in allocated Although possibly unethical, one
measured units, agencies, and or- funds must play to ensure budget main-
ganizations tained
3. Easy life Bureaucrats and others who can Workload and prerogatives Regulate capricious environment
dictate own work environments (e.g., budget cuts) by rationing
services
4. Pork barrel Politicians and those who can bar- Discretionary resources The end justifies the means
gain in organizations
Games that modify
objectives
5. All things to all people Problem solvers Posturing that a problem Some problems are unsolvable so
has been dealt with deflecting attention is legitimate
6. My program Potential plan beneficiaries A slice of the resouirces to One group is as needy as another
be allocated
7. Peace keeping objectives Zealots Statu.s and power Mission to root ouit evils
Evasion of control games Managers and bureaucrats charged Protecting the easy life Protect vested interests by
8. Gesture with implementation monopoly on power
Managers and bureaucrats charged Protecting the easy life Protect vested interests by power
9. Pitched battels with implementation monopoly

Incomplete adoption gaines All Meet players' terms Seek modifications before a pro-
10. Delay gram becomes institutionali7ed
Those with legitimate or quasi- Setti
11. Turf legitimate program linkages lines come institutionalized
Anticipated program managers Dumping a controversial Responsibility can be shifted to
12. Someone else's problem or demanding program those better eqtuipped
Those with something to lose The amouint that can be Minimize losses
13. Odd man out lost (e.g., discretionary
funds)

aAdapted from Bardach (1977).

moted by having key individuals participate in plan-
ning groups or by canvassing plan users, sponsors,
managers, and others early in the process to deter-
mine their concerns or demands. Suggestions from
stakeholders are sought, including participation in
creating solutions, hoping to get their acquiescence
if not their wholehearted acceptance. Participation
is required in each planning stage in conjunction with
a "participation managed" planning process.
Bases of Power
French and Raven (1959) identify five bases of
power that can be used: reward, legitimate, referent,
expert, and informational. Reward power stems from
providing rewards or removing noxiants. Coercive
power is a special type of reward power in which
punishments are administered or rewards are
skipped-the "omission" tactic. The plan sponsor
administers rewards when behavior is supportive of
the plan and can act in a coercive manner when
behavior is not supportive.
Legitimate power stems from perceptions of the
right to influence and the requirement to conform.
A person's position in an organizational structure is
a common source of legitimate power. Legitimate
power is always restricted in scope. The supervisor,
for instance, can influence the work but not the
leisure time activities of his/her subordinates
Expert power develops when the implementor is
seen by those he/she seeks to influence as having
unique knowledge and skills and as credible and
trustworthy. To be credible, the change agent must
have a track record of successes. Trust stems from
a reputation of honest and candid dealings with
people.
When insights are offered that alter the perceptions
of someone that the implementor hopes to influence,
informational power is applied. The information is
tailored to fit the situation, attempting to modify
preconceived ideas about the plan (Parsons, 1963).
To use information power the implementor must be
seen as trustworthy, but not necessarily as credible.
For example, a relevant anecdote must be seen as well
intended and may or may not be seen as relevant.

603

This content downloaded from 212.21.46.214 on Mon, 08 Jul 2019 08:22:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Exhibit 1
Bardach's Guide for
Implementation Scenario Writinga
Step 1: Restate the plan and its objective
Step 2: Inventory affected parties
Step 3: Identify areas of compromise that lower resistance and
identify implementing units that are compatible
Step 4: Determine if resistance is likely to stem from low effort
games (delay), resource diversion games (e.g., easy
money), objective modification games (e.g., my program),
evasion games (e.g., gesttire), incomplete adoption (e.g.,
tturf)
Step 5: Identify the players and the stakes in each likely game.
Find nattiral allies and whether they are likely to be sup-
portive of the plan. Measure prosspects of stuccess by de-
termining who muist be confronted and their power.
Step 6: Fix the game- offer incentives to participate that create
a manageable coalition supportive of the plan (or a mod-
ification)
aAdapted from Bardach (1977).
Some implementors can create (or have) some
form of attraction or identification that draws peo-
ple to them, which is called referent power. The
charismatic leader is said to have referent power.
Referent power has only marginal value in implemen-
tation because a plan sponsor has little to go on to
identify change agents who have these traits.
The power bases can have cumulative effects when
applied together. For instance, both reward prerog-
atives also are often seen as legitimate change agents.
Expert power enhances information power.
Selecting an Implementation Approach
Defining an Environment's Climate
An assessment of climate is used to suggest an im-
plementation approach. Unfavorable environments
make demands that call for a more elaborate ap-
proach than do favorable environments.
Climate will be defined by centralization, complex- scious environment, again to reinforce behaviors that
ity, production, and efficiency (Hage & Aiken, 1970).
Centralization is defined as participation in decision
making. When decision participation is low (central-
ization high), implementation prospects fall. Par-
ticipatory settings are more tolerant of change
because participants are made aware of the rationales
that lie behind the plan. Sponsors who have high level
positions in centralized organizations often have
legitimate power. In decentralized organizations,
such as matrix organizations, plan sponsors may lack
such power. All other sources of power can be used
in centralized settings.
Complexity is defined by the number of unique
disciplines. Many diverse disciplines enhance im-
604
This content downloaded from 212.21.46.214 on Mon, 08 Jul 2019 08:22:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
plementation prospects. A diverse skill mix has dif-
ferent frames of reference, which create new ideas
in routine discussions and contacts. When complex-
ity is present it influences expert and informational
power bases. Expert power may have limited use
because of the difficulty to demonstrate both
credibility and trust to many diverse disciplines or
skills. The ability to use an informational power base
also may decline in a complex environment. The
message tailoring must be varigated, designed to fit
each discipline. The cost and complexity of this task
may render information power of little value. Simi-
larly, a person with referent power in one discipline
may hold little attraction to another. Only reward
and legitimate power are useful in complex envi-
ronments.
The production of an organization, its product or
services, can stress quantity or quality. A quality em-
phasis increases and a quantity emphasis decreases
the prospects of successful implementation. The abil-
ity to use rewards is limited drastically when quality
of production is stressed. Reward (coercive) power
is dependent on the ability of the implementing agent
to monitor behavior and offer incentives that en-
courage plan adoption. Quality monitoring is much
more difficult than quantity monitoring. Organiza-
tions that stress quantity are in a better position to
use rewards to reinforce useful implementation be-
havior. All other power bases can be used in this type
of environment.
Efficiency concerns the level of cost consciousness.
High efficiency demands often result in a lower pros-
pect of implementation because change threatens cost
performance, even if the decline is temporary.
Rewards are far easier to administer in a cost con-
enhance implementation prospects. An environment
that does not stress efficiency will have to search for
a measure that can be monitored, thus rendering
reward power less valuable. All other power bases
can be used.
All combinations of values for these four charac-
teristics define 16 archetype environments, as shown
by the decision tree in Figure 1. Each is used to
describe an organization or work unit engaged in
planning. Intraorganizational planning can be car-
ried out by "venture management" teams when
several units are affected (Zand, 1974). Table 3 sug-
gests an implementation approach that seems best
suited for each environment engaging in planning.
Figure 2 contrasts the prescriptions so that com-
parisons can be made.
Collegial Environments
A collegial environment stems from a high degree
of professionalism (high complexity) in a decentral-
ized setting, reinforced by a strong emphasis on qual-
ity and little emphasis on efficiency. For example,
university faculties have considerable freedom to pur-
sue their own interests, as long as they can demon-
strate quality (get published). No one monitors cost
(e.g., faculty time) to get a paper published or, in-
deed, even considers it.
In such an environment, participatory planning is
mandatory (Figure 2). Planning prerogatives are del-
egated to representatives. The planner guides the
group representatives through a planning process.
The process is described as participation driven. In
this environment, participation in all planning stages
is essential because the environment is composed of
diverse people with high levels of expertise, each of
which is needed by the plan. If properly involved,
participants often readily accept the result and will
be prepared to advocate the plan to nonparticipants.
Plan sponsors do not need to use power in a collegial
environment.
Professional Environments
The professional environment has many diverse
skills. Managers who accommodate these disciplines'
desire for independent action and the need to con-
trol cost and quality by delegation create a profes-
sional environment. For example, the college text-
book division of a book publisher largely delegates
future title decisions to experts. The publisher's ex-
ecutive committee selects topics and authors, but it
relies heavily on recommendations of the consultants
obtained by department chiefs specializing in each
field. To make a profit, the books must be of suffi-
cient quality to sell and must be able to be produced
efficiently, having minimal symbology and other cost
inducing features.
Participative planning is the preferred implemen-
tation approach in professional environments (Figure
2). The delegation in such environments makes par-
ticipation almost mandatory. Participation can be
supported by expert power. If the planning process's
sponsor, his/her agent, and others are seen as ex-
perts, their support of the plan can aid implementa-
tion.
605
This content downloaded from 212.21.46.214 on Mon, 08 Jul 2019 08:22:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Table 3
Implementation Approaches Tailored
for Each Environment
Project Type of Inplernentation
Environment Power Technique
Collegial None Participation and
perstuasion
Professional Fxrpert Participation
Nova Reward Participation
Consuiltative Reward Participation
liberated Fxpert or Participation
information
Abdicated Fxpert or tinfreeze-refreeze
in formation
Delegated Reward tinfreeze-refreeze
Trust Informational Perstiasion
Stuspiciouis legitimate Giame scenario with
par icipation
Neturotic legitimate Deemonstration
Overma naged Legitimate Un freeze-refreeze
and reward
Control All CGame scenario
Totalitarian legitimate Fdict and demonstration
Standardized L.egitimate UJnfree7e-refree7M
Distributive legitimate Persuiasion
and reward
Rigid legitimate Giame scenario
and reward
Nova Environments
Environments that stress output volume, with less
emphasis on cost controls, demanding a diverse skill
mix, often force the manager to decentralize. Such
environments are termed nova because the diversity
of disciplines and the simplistic nature of the charge
(volume) create a climate in which innovation is fos-
tered. Examples include outpatient clinics and same-
day surgery centers. Both deal with the comparatively
routine health problem and can use charges to cover
inefficiencies in operations. The professionalism and
skill mix is high, leading to loose managerial control.
Nova environments stimulate change. Plan spon-
sors in such settings will find planning groups form-
ing spontaneously to look into ways to increase
volume. The administrator must gain control over
these planning processes (become its sponsor) by of-
fering staff services. Participative planning is man-
datory, but the impetus comes bottom-up, forcing
the sponsor to use tactics that ensure that the change
is cost justified (Figure 2). The sponsor needs no im-
plementation technique beyond controlling the pro-
pensity of people in these environments to make
change for change sake.
Reward power, although not essential, can be use-
ful to support implementation in the nova environ-
ment when internal planning is attempted. The im-
plementor often can create an incentive scheme, bas-
 Figure 1
Defining Project Environments

Amnouint of Degree of Production Desire for Project

Centralization Coinplexitv Emphasis Efficiency Environment

Collegial
quartity Ig Professional

\
\ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~quality low rlieae
\~~~~~~~~~~~~
high \ high
low = _=_Nova
Consultative
Liberated

< ~ quality hig h - ~ ' Trust

quantity high Abdicated

high low ~ _Delegated

l\tow ~ =Suispicious
high ~~Neuirotic
low \ _Overmanaged
\ ~~~~qualityvig Control
low w Totalitarian
antity - high _ Standardized

lo", Distributive
high gRigid

ed on volume, to encourage use of the plan once it
is installed. Implementation prospects are enhanced
when someone who is seen as an expert endorses the
plan.
Consultative Environment
Environments demanding high volume at low cost
and requiring diverse skills should be decentralized.
These environments are naturally consultative. Con-
sultation is needed to understand the diverse mix of
skills and their role in maintaining a favorable unit
cost picture. Examples include manufacturers with
several complex production stages that must be
linked, such as the manufacturing of photographic
film. Quality control in such an organization is less
important than unit costs. Film emulsion making,
packaging in a low light environment, and the dis-
tribution of the perishable X-ray product call for
vastly different skills. Consultation among these
stages is essential to ensure that one does not in-
advertently influence the costs of another.
The prescriptions in these environments are like
those in a nova environment, but the application of
participation is different. Participation is used in con-
sultative environments to manage the boundaries be-
tween work groups (Figure 2). The team has member-
ship drawn from each different skill or knowledge
base.
Reward power bases can be used to augment par-
ticipative techniques. Because volume and cost are
emphasized, a unit cost criterion of performance can
be constructed. An incentive schema using cost mea-
sure can be used to encourage plan implementation.
Liberated Environment
Environments that do not control a homogeneous
work group, which is required to provide quality ser-
vices or products with little cost emphasis, are called
liberated. Examples include psychiatry departments,
behavioral modification centers, and others offering
professional services, such as physical and speech
therapy organizations or home nursing services. The
origins of a liberated environment stem from tradi-
tions in the dominant discipline that provides the ser-
vice. Control attempts are evaded by keeping the pa-
tient care process mysterious.
This environment demands that each service be
adapted to the individual patient's needs. Some (if
not much) service tailoring is unnecessary. The en-
vironment is liberated by permitting decentralized
decisions, because a centralized approach would be
more cost effective. Decentralized decision making
that extends to all organizational activities is com-
mon in professional service organizations.
People in a liberated environment will insist on
participating in all planning efforts mounted by a

606

This content downloaded from 212.21.46.214 on Mon, 08 Jul 2019 08:22:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
plan sponsor. The participation provides guidance, The hospital laboratory typically creates a "pro-
as in the nova environnment. Formal planning, how- fit." Thus, efficient operations are essential. Hospi-
ever, is relatively more important in the liberated en- tals often use this source of funds to offset losses
vironment because change is less likely to percolate elsewhere. Quality also is essential because key deci-
from skill mix interactions. Implementation teams sions hinge on the precision of laboratory informa-
must pull their membership from those affected by tion. Surprisingly, many hospitals leave laboratories
the planning effort. to function independently, failing to check on their
Either an information or an expert power base can revenue less cost contribution against norms (e.g.,
be used by the implementor in a liberated environ- this same figure in comparable laboratories). Staff
ment. Because the environment is homogeneous, the units, such as accounting, have enormous impact on
implementor can argue from the vantage point of the hospital in revenue maximization; yet they seldom
trust, or trust and competence. are evaluated.
In the abdicated environment, the plan sponsor
Abdicated Environment first must gain control before initiating a planning
process (Figure 2). Planning should be preceded by
When a relatively homogeneous skill mix creates and unfreezing-refreezing technique to reestablish
a product or service that demands both cost and control.
quality control, with comparatively little direction, The use of incentives often is rendered impossible
the environment is termed "abdicated." This situa- when the performance criterion must stress both cost
tion calls for considerable scrutiny because the ex- and quality. Expert and information power are re-
pectations are stringent: demanding both quality and commended, for the reasons cited in the previous
cost effective products or services. Delegation in this discussion. Both expert and information power fit
situation implies that managers are not exerting suf- well with the unfreezing-refreezing implementation
ficient controls. Examples include hospital and public technique and should be useful in helping to ensure
health laboratories and some staff units. plan adoption.
Figure 2
Implementation Techniques and Power Bases Tailored for Each Type of Environment
Complexity
Low Hikh
_ tjjcienc Efficiency
Low High Low High
DISTRIBUTIVEa RIGID O VERMANAGED CONTROI.
techniqte technique technique technique
perstiasion game scenaric, unfreeze-refreeze game scenario
power hase power base power base power base
~ legitimate and reward legitimate and reward legitimate and reward all
TOTALITARIAN STANDARDIZED SUSPICIOUS NEUROTIC
techniquie technique technique techniqtue
S edict and demnonstration unfree7e-refreeze game scenario with demonstration
.c Cj participation
power base power base power base power hase
legitimate legitimate legitimate legitimate
DELEGA TED TRUST NOVA CONSUI TA TIVE
technique technique technique technique
unfreeze-refreeze perstiasion participation participation
power base power base power base power base
reward informational reward reward
LIBERA TED A BDICA TED COLlEGIA L. PROFESSIONA I.
technique technique technique technique
participation uinfreeze-refreeze participation and persuiasion participation
power base power base power hase power base
expert or informational expert or informational none ex pert
aProject environment.

607

This content downloaded from 212.21.46.214 on Mon, 08 Jul 2019 08:22:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Delegated Environments bases are preferred. This approach fits well with
persuasion-implementation. Trust environments are
Delegated environments do not mirror the ab-
sympathetic, so elaborate implementation techniques
dicated environment. The needs for managerial
are not required.
monitoring are less stringent because volume is the
required outcome. Complexity is low, which allows Suspicious Environments
for centralization, but the manager chooses to dele-
gate rather than to control. The manager chooses to Decentralization is the preferred tact when com-
delegate because the unit can be monitored by quota plexity is high and the product or service demands
filling strategy. Also, other departments or activities quality with less emphasis on cost. When such envi-
may take precedence, so the manager elects to spend ronments are found to be centralized, they are called
more time with units that must create cost-effective suspicious. Examples include organizations that use
and/or quality products. Delegated environments in- a matrix structure to create their product or deliver
clude purchasing departments that are expected to services, but impose several layers of managers above
keep inventories for supply items filled. the service delivery or product creation level in order
Delegated environments develop a tradition of in- to maintain control. These hopes are futile because
dependent action. The plan sponsor must reassert the quality dimension of performance makes it hard
his/her control to establish the need for change in to monitor, except on an anecdotal basis.
a work unit and initiate a planning process. The Examples include some large not-for-profit con-
unfreezing-refreezing technique sets the stage for sulting organizations and government "think tanks."
planning and reestablishes the plan sponsor's con- A matrix structure is used to form a product team.
trol, making change prospects favorable (Figure 2). The product (often a research study or an evaluation)
Reward based power can be used to aid implemen- is controlled by managers who dictate who will serve
tation in a delegated environment. Incentive schemes on the group, as well as the group's budget and its
that measure volume can be used to entice plan use. leadership. Monitoring is carried out by cost progress

Trust Environment
Only centralization can be changed by managerial
prerogatives in a trust environment. The other char-
acteristics (volume, efficiency, and complexity) are
all fixed in the short run. This allows the manager
the choice of establishing a centralized or a decen-
tralized organization. The centralized structure is the Past battles over turf make persuasion unworkable
more common. When delegation occurs, it is called
a trust environment. An environment stressing trust
delegates in the face of efficiency and volume de-
mands and the relative homogeneity of jobholders.
A trust environment generally is supportive of
change. Implementation becomes problematic only
when the manager or the jobholder is found to ex-
ploit the trust situation. Examples include the rela-
tionship between a contract management service and
the trustees of the managed hospital. The contract
management service uses a cadre of professional
managers who are expected to improve the hospital's
bottom line, demanding attention to both volume
and costs. Typically, persuasion is all that is needed
to implement a trust environment (Figure 2). A
trusting environment fosters trust among the parti-
cipants.
In the trust environment, informational power
toward completion dates, using techniques such as
milestone charts and PERT. The control tactics can
be sufficiently pervasive to stifle professionalism and
individual initiative in an environment that calls for
just these qualities.
Plan sponsors seeking to induce change in a suspi-
cious environment are faced with a difficult task.
and edicts undesirable. A game scenario with par-
ticipation in planning is recommended (Figure 2). The
game scenario can be used to identify key people who
should be persuaded to make the changes demand-
ed by a plan.
The centralized nature of the suspicious environ-
ment calls for the sponsor to use legitimate power
to implement. An implementor is selected who has
a lofty position in the organization's hierarchy so
he/she can act as the change agent. If the change
agent is properly selected, he/she will have the
legitimate power to encourage plan adoption. Such
power may be needed because plans developed in
suspicious environments tend to have problematic
adoption prospects.
Neurotic Environment
Some environments make stringent demands, re-
608

This content downloaded from 212.21.46.214 on Mon, 08 Jul 2019 08:22:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
quiring both quality and cost effectiveness, and have
heterogeneous skills managed by a centralized man-
agement approach. Such environments are called
neurotic because control is a totally inappropriate tac-
tic to use. The work force prefers a "professional"
approach, and the nature of the work also calls for
this approach. The manager who imposes tight con-
trols despite this need for decentralization shows
leadership anxiety. A compulsion to control often
stems from phobias about being unable to account
for the natural variations in performance.
A neurotic environment is created by the manager.
Thus any professional setting can be subjected to con-
trol. An insecure manager can be found in publishing
or consulting firms, accounting or other staff depart-
ments, and other settings in which professionalism
should be stressed.
Edict approaches are likely to be used by the
manager in this environment, but a demonstration
is preferable. No other approach will work without
a change in environment, thus shifting the prescrip-
tion to that for a professional environment (Figure
2). Legitimate power can be used in the neurotic en-
vironment. In a centralized setting, a change agent
can be selected who has sufficient prestige to use
legitimate power. Legitimate power works well in
tandem with the preferred implementation technique:
demonstration.
centralized setting, a change agent can be selected
who has sufficient prestige to use legitimate power.
Legitimate power works well in tandem with the
preferred implementation technique: demonstration.
Overmanaged Environments
An overmanaged environment results from cen-
tralizing a diverse work force charged with providing
volume. The environment is potentially nova, but the
manager has stifled innovation. Such an environment
tends to stimulate control tactics, such as rule
codification and complex procedures, and creates
large differences in prestige and pay between orga-
nizational layers. For example, stringent controls
placed on outpatient clinics will tend to shut down
their natural innovative urges.
To plan in an overmanaged environment, the need
for change must be introduced. The unfreeze-refreeze
approach seems best for this purpose (Figure 2). Both
legitimate and reward power can be used to aid im-
plementation. The centralized structure allows the
selection of a change agent high enough in the
609
This content downloaded from 212.21.46.214 on Mon, 08 Jul 2019 08:22:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
organization that his /her recommendation must be
heeded. The change agent can offer volume based
incentives to entice key people to work toward plan
adoption.
Control Environment
In a control environment, attention is directed
toward optimizing unit costs. Control is stressed to
keep the diversity of skills in line. The behavior and
diversity of employee motivations can be hard to ap-
preciate, instigating generic control procedures to
homogenize the situation, thereby simplifying con-
trol. The control mentality justifies a centralized
organization under a unit cost monitoring guise. Ex-
amples include departments charged with making
travel disbursements in universities. Travel monitor-
ing departments publish elaborate rules and apply
them religiously to maintain expenditure control.
Even justifiable deviations are disallowed because the
department fears that other travelers will exploit the
exception and because the myriad of justifiable ex-
ceptions is difficult to appreciate fully. Exceptions
stem from an assortment of reasons, justified by the
unique circumstances operating in each disciplinary
area.
Plan sponsors in control settings must use elabo-
rate tactics. The game scenario technique is recom-
mended (Figure 2) to find people's incentives to block
or support the plan. Consistent with the previous
arguments, legitimate and reward power can be used.
(Incentives in this case are based on unit cost
measures.) However, all sources of power may be
needed because implementation prospects are only
fair in a control environment.
Totalitarian Environments
A controlled environment with natural urges to be
liberated is called totalitarian. The manager who im-
poses control tactics (rules and procedures with arti-
ficial status differentials) on a homogeneous work
force seeking quality, with relatively few cost
restraints, creates such an environment. Examples in-
clude the relationship between house staff and
departmental chiefs in a university hospital and the
European system of higher education, with its chairs.
Fiefdoms are created in university hospitals when the
service chief controls the care given through his/her
orders, often administered in a Byzantine fashion.
These power differences are reinforced by enormous
differences in pay and status between the chief and
the house staff. The pecking order in the university
hospital creates a very tall organization in which
change is impossible to induce without the chief's
backing.
An edict is used in such environments (Figure 2).
The leader has the power to make unilateral changes
and can severely punish noncompliants. Edicts are
fast and uncomplicated, but they tend to reinforce
a negative image of the implementor. An edict cou-
pled with a demonstration can be helpful in il-
lustrating the leader's rationale, if not his/her con-
sideration. Implementation relies exclusively on
legitimate power.
Standardized Environment
The centralized setting with a homogeneous work
force, demanding a cost and quality emphasis, is
called standardized. When both quality and cost ef-
ficiency are demanded, a clear understanding of the
parameters surrounding the product or service is es-
sential. This leads the manager to seek ways to stan-
dardize the delivery to ensure that both quality and
cost requirements are met. Examples include com-
panies trying to sell data processing services and
printing companies. Each must provide quality at a
competitive price, and each typically has a centra-
lized structure with a comparatively low skill mix to
make standardization easier.
Standardized environments are poor candidates for
change. Tension and need for change must be made
apparent. The unfreeze-refreeze technique is recom-
mended to guide plan implementation (Figure 2). Im-
plementation in a standardized environment benefits
from the use of legitimate power. The change agent
who has clear-cut powers will be far more effective
in using the unfreeze-refreeze approach for internal
planning efforts.
Distributive Environment
A high volume, low cost concern environment,
with a homogeneous skill pool that is centralized, is
called a "distributive" environment. The emphasis
is on meeting demands. On the for-profit side, ex-
amples include companies scrambling to bring a new
technology to market. Revenues stem from big
volumes, obviating the need to worry about costs.
Organizations with a new service also need to make
a market. For example, counseling services attempt
to bring services to as many people as possible.
Such environments are change-oriented. Any new
610
This content downloaded from 212.21.46.214 on Mon, 08 Jul 2019 08:22:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
approach that has the promise of increasing volume
will be considered. Implementation in this setting
merely requires a demonstration of how the plan can
increase organizational volume. Persuasion usually
is quite adequate to bring off an implementation.
Legitimate power and reward power can be used
as implementation aids. Both mesh well with persua-
sion. Incentives, tied to a volume criterion, can be
used to create rewards that encourage plan use.
However, the use of power has much less value in
this environment because of its change orientation.
Rigid Environments
The rigidity of the environment stems from cen-
tralization of authority, which creates rules and pro-
cedures to ease control of the unit or the organiza-
tion. The demand for volume and efficiency gives
such an environment a single criterion of success (unit
cost). The criterion acts as a constraint: all change
must demonstrate that unit costs will be enhanced,
even during a period when a plan is being installed.
There are few countervailing forces because of the
relatively homogeneous skill mix. Hospital laundry
and dietary departments are examples.
The best technique in this environment calls for
the game scenario. This approach permits the plan
sponsor to identify and bargain with key actors in
the environment during the planning process (Figure
2). Power is needed as an implementation aid in a
rigid environment because all of its characteristics
point toward problems during plan implementation.
Both legitimate and reward power should be used.
Incentives use a unit cost criterion in this envi-
ronment.
Summary
This paper has developed planning based ap-
proaches to implementation and suggested en-
vironments in which each approach can be used best.
The focus is on internal attributes of an organiza-
tion and project planning. Participation, planner,
and change agent-managed planning processes are
shown to be linked to particular implementation
techniques. Implementation techniques can be direct,
as in an edict, or indirect, as in co-optation via par-
ticipation. In between these extremes, unfreeze-re-
freeze and game scenario can be used to create an
environment conducive to plan acceptance. These
techniques are called manipulative because they
manage the situation until people are predisposed to
support the plan. The implementor applies various
combinations of reward, legitimate, expert, informa-
tional, and/or referent power in concert with one of
these implementation techniques to pave the way for
plan adoption. A total implementation approach is
made up of power bases and implementation tech-
niques that can be drawn on by the implementor as
he/she manages the planning process.
For organizations or work units, 16 environments
are defined in terms of their tendency to be centra-
lized, their tendency to be cost conscious, their qual-
ity or quantity orientation, and their skill mix. An
implementation approach (technique and power
bases) for project planning has been proposed to meet
the unique demands in each environment. Each pro-
posal in Figure 2 suggests hypotheses for future
research into implementation effectiveness. Further
work is planned to extend the framework to consor-
tium or multiorganizational planning.

References

Bardach, E. The implenentation game. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Hage, J., & Aiken, M. Social change in complex organizations.
Press, 1977. New York: Random House, 1970.

Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. The management of innovation. ILon-

Huse, E. F. Organization developmnent and change. St. Paul,
don: Tavistock, 1971. Minn.: West, 1975.

Churchman, C. W. Theories of implementation. In R. I.. Schultz
& D. P. Slevin (Eds.), Implementing operations research and
managemnent science. New York: Elsevier, 1975, 23-30.
Churchman, C. W., & Schainblatt, H. A. The researcher and the
manager: A dialectic of implementation. Management Science,
1965, 11, 1369-1387.
Daft, R. L., & Becker, S. W. Innovation in organizations. New
York: Wiley-Interscience, 1978.
March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. Organizations. New York: Wiley,
1958.
Nutt, P. C. Calling out and calling off the dogs: Managerial
diagnosis in organizations. Academy of Managemnent Review,
1979a, 4, 203-214.
Nutt, P. C. On the quality and acceptance of plans drawn by con-
sortiums. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1979b, 15 (1),
203-214.

Dalton, G. W. Influence and organizational change. In G. W.
Dalton, P. R. ILawrence, & L. E. Greiner (Eds.), Organizational
change and developmnent. Homewood, Ill.: Irwin, 1970, 230-258.
Delbecq, A., & Van de Ven, A. A group process model for prob-
lem identification and program planning. Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 1971, 7 (4), 466-492.
Emshoff, J. Planning the process of improving the planning pro-
cess: A case study in meta planning. Management Science, 1978,
24, 1095-1 108.
French, J. R. P., Jr., & Raven, B. H. The bases of social power.
In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power. Ann Arbor,
Mich.: Institute for Social Research, 1959, 607-623.
Nutt, P. C. Hybrid planning methods. Academny of Managemnent
Review, 1982, 7, 442-454.
Nutt, P. C. Planning methods. New York: Wiley, 1983.
Parsons, T. On the concept of influence. Public opinion quiarter-
/v, 1963, 27, 37-62.
Schultz, R. L., & Slevin, D. P. Imnplemnentation of operations
research/managemnent science. New York: Elsevier, 1975.
Thompson, J. D. Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-
Hill, 1967.
Zaltman, G., Duncan, R., & Holbek, .1., Innovation and organiza-
tions. New York: Wiley-Interscience, 1973.

Greiner, L. E. Influence and organizational change. In G. W. Zand, C. E. Collateral organization: A new change strategy. Jour-
Dalton, P. R. Lawrence, & L. E. Greiner (Eds.), Organizational nal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1974, 10 (1), 63-89.
change and development. Homewood, Ill.: Irwin, 1970, 213-229.

Paul C. Nutt is Professor in the Graduate Program in

Hospital and Health Services Administration, Management
and Labor Studies, and Industrial and Systems Engineer-
ing, Ohio State University.

611

This content downloaded from 212.21.46.214 on Mon, 08 Jul 2019 08:22:06 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms