Organizational Change Report for Maritime Industry

This report discusses the organizational, cultural and technological transformation required for a company in the maritime industry to meet growing competition. It includes recommendations from EY and decision criteria based on financial concerns, regulatory concerns, reputational risks and sustainability of services.

1
Organizational Change Report
Name:
Course
Professor’s name
University name
City, State
Date of submission

2
Executive Summary
The report is to find the point of inflection for a company working in the maritime industry
which is trying to transform to meet competitors in the industry. The company couldn’t remain
static amidst growing competition and had to sort help from EY. The four points of inflection are
financial concerns, regulatory concerns, reputational risks and sustainability of services as it
impacted maritime businesses.
EY was to give a health check and give a set of recommendation regarding the transformational
change. The organization did not have an independent perspective on the likely success to
effective transformation. The transformation required or sort after by the maritime business are
organizational, cultural and technical or technological. It also has little independent oversight
over how it actually could have changed to become the best. The rate at which the company is
internally growing is slower than the rate of industry change and although the company is
financially sound, in the long term it will have a continuity in business.
The degree of organizational capability which was missing is identified by the professional
business consultant and the solution and recommendation are given in the report. The conclusion
found was that although the company was trying to change, it was continuing with its previous
operations and therefore could not effectively drive its own change. The same people that wanted
change were the same ones driving the agenda as of now. It is hard to change considering that
the company is healthy financially and is doing well technologically.

3
The conclusion made in the report by EY is that organizational, cultural and technological
transformation can only be made and sustained if the company changes all its operation from
what it is doing. Points of inflection can only be made by transformational change.

4
Introduction
A company working in the maritime industry has involved a business consultant to consult on
the ways in which it can improve its business. The rate in which the industry and the competition
are growing is bigger than the rate in its internal growth. The main idea is to improve its business
in tandem with the business and industry demands. The company is earning hefty amounts of
profits despite being unable to take all competition that’s is coming from the industry (Martin
and Osterling 2014).
Issue
The main issue in this case is to get independent perspective on growth of maritime safety
industry and the growth of the company . The second issue is to change the organizational
process which is internal. In this case, the maritime industry organizational change has three
stages. The first one is to determine data collection in order to effect the right change desired.
Determination of the data that is being issued, the nature and availability of the data and the
methods for collection within the organization. Data determination includes techniques and
methods that describes the system organization, the relationship between the elements that guide
the system and identifying the problems within the company. Organizational diagnosis, in the
interpretation of where the company wants to go and where it is at the moment. Diagnosis will
involve the use of data collected from the company and the maritime industry itself (Whitford
2007). Action and intervention on prevention of collapse and the system in which it wants to be
changed. Today, change in an organization is the cornerstone of continuous organizational
improvement. People change, and so do organizations and organizational culture. Organizations
develop capacities to learn and capitalize on knowledge(Lack 2013).

5
How to prevent future collapse of the maritime industry business is by increasing synergy and
competitive energy in the industry. The company should also address other issues such as
efficiency and effectiveness in company operations and the ability of the company to be
competitive (Burke 2018).
In this sense, it would be extremely useful for executives, managers, executives and
professionals of companies that devote more of their time and energy to trying to learn based on
what they decide what they have to solve and, more importantly, what they are.
Cause of the issues in the business
The company is growing at a lower rate internally that the external growth rate of the business
and competition. Although the company is profitable and its operations are among the best, it
still needs internal re alignment to sustain its business(Hess 2010). As a maritime and
technological business, it provides support systems to its clients. Technology especially develops
and advances with every movement of time. It is in this change in industry that has caused the
company to seek external health check on how it can improve or overhaul its business. A good
business needs to stay in touch with its peers and competitors as the industry grows (Caluwé and
Vermaak 2007).
The rate at which the company is internally growing is slower than the rate of industry change
and although the company is financially sound, in the long term it will have a continuity in
business(Organizations 2010).
The cause of this report is to give the company a health check on what to do to change the
internal system that is being used right now. The company wants to get an opinion on what it can

6
do to get on a growth rate that is commensurate with the industry growth. The managers
supposed to implement the change in organization are the same ones that are driving the same
system that is running now. It is important to note that the cause of organizational change is to
also help in competition. (Carr 2006).
Decision criteria
Based on data collected, the financial system and the other data collected from the industry was
used for decision criteria. The degree of organizational capability was also missing. The decision
was also based on the current industrial and competition levels. It should be noted that the degree
of organizational capability was missing. Due to little independent oversight over how it actually
could have changed throughout the various inflections it was going through.
The primary essence of management is to make decisions. For managers, it is required that they
evaluate alternatives and to make wide range decisions on particular matters. The decisions are
based on risk and uncertainty and have varying degree of aversion of risk. Qualitative and
quantitative analysis are used in making decisions. The main question to be asked is what is to be
done and developing action plans. Posing for the problem is correctly used in making better
decisions (Carter, Ulrich and Goldsmith 2012). Decisions should be made to lead to better
alternatives. Since this is an organization, it works with different budgets and resources. The
transition between an old system and a new system will require clarity of mind and rational
decisions. Development of more alternatives in the maritime industry will only be found out in a
team. There should also be system analysis and intuitive analysis where conditions of uncertainty
makes the organization better(Recardo 2008).

7
Decision criteria in this company is based on improvement of the system to match or be better
than the competitors. The decisions could not be based on anything other than rational thinking
on where the company wanted to go. Change of system should be swift or gradual based on the
requirements by the company. A swift system requires the company to close shop for maybe a
week or three days to change the system based on what they want. Risk and uncertainty in the
business should also propel the business to the next level(Turnbull et al. 2004). Decisions should
also be based on principles based on analytical decision making. Risk management should be at
the core in decision making. There should also be decision support systems in role information
(Carter, Ulrich and Goldsmith 2012). The rate at which the company is internally growing is
slower than the rate of industry change and although the company is financially sound, in the
long term it will have a continuity in business(Gorton 2011). The company should also address
other issues such as efficiency and effectiveness in company operations and the ability of the
company to be competitive.
Alternatives
In making decision alternatives, there should be long term and short term measures of crisis and
crisis prevention. The main areas in short term alternatives are operation of technology and
organizational culture.
When it comes to a long term, there is greater mobility, both entry and exit in the market,
something that is not very feasible when dealing with short-term periods. In this case, it can be
considered a practically null benefit, where the meaning of the same refers to benefits where
different companies are attracted or repelled according to the success or the losses in the
maritime industry (Wang and Lowe 2005).A difference in terms of short and long term benefits

8
in the economy is that in the short term, it is possible to obtain a greater amount of benefits,
unlike the long term where constant entry and exit makes these benefits disappear , being null.
Recommended Solutions
Planning: this is one of those magic words that every manager is tired of listening to and thinks
he knows about everything. However, not all companies, especially those of small size, dedicate
the necessary time to design strategies and achieve objectives and goals. When we speak in the
short term, then, the action plan is constantly replaced by impulsive decisions (VOLTI 2017).
Understand then why it is important to have short-term plans.
Doing short-term planning means formulating one or more plans (paths of action) to achieve
goals and objectives to be achieved in the near future. For this, it is necessary to evaluate the
needs, demands and available resources in order to establish a strategy to implement an action
and, subsequently, be able to direct and control(Bolten 2008).
Planning to avoid financial difficulties
Forecasts are not always fulfilled and, as a rule, the facts end up being different from the
forecasts. But with financial planning, the chances of facing financial difficulties are less. In
addition to good financial planning, to achieve the objectives, whether short-term or not, it is also
necessary to plan the schedule of supply, sales, production, etc. Planning is a way of anticipating
the facts (Maguire 2003). By planning the short, medium and long term, it is easier to deal with
the daily difficulties and challenges of the companies.
Implementation and implication

9
Planning should be understood as an essential management tool for the strategy of any company.
Secondly, it must be understood as a technique that provides greater security so that the
objectives and management goals are achieved. Finally, without stipulating a path to reach these
goals, it is difficult for the company to achieve them (Maguire 2003).
On the other hand, with a well-made short-term planning, the success of the company is
facilitated. When planning is done with the appropriate techniques, it becomes one of the best
tools that a director, manager or president can have to ensure the success of the company.
The concern with planning must be constant and needs to contain all the activities of the
company, including those in the short term, in which apparently it would not be necessary to plan
in advance (Burke 2018).
Strategy implementation in maritime business will only be realized once the company focuses on
introducing a new system, technology and organizational culture to meet the demands in the
industry.

10
References
Bolten, J. G. 2008. Sources Of Weapon System Cost Growth. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corp.
Burke, W. Warner. 2018. Organization Change. Los Angeles: SAGE.
Caluwé, Léon de, and Hans Vermaak. 2007. Learning To Change. Thousand Oaks, Calif. [u.a.]:
Sage Publ.
Carr, Patricia. 2006. Implementing Culture Change. Alexandria, Va.: ASTD Press.
Carter, Louis, Dave Ulrich, and Marshall Goldsmith. 2012. Best Practices In Leadership
Development And Organization Change. Somerset: Wiley.
Gorton, Bob. 2011. Boosting Sales. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Hess, Edward D. 2010. Smart Growth. New York: Columbia Business School Publishing.
Lack, Jonathan H. 2013. Plan To Turn Your Company Around In 90 Days. Berkeley, CA:
Apress.
Maguire, Edward R. 2003. Organizational Structure In American Police Agencies. Albany: State
University of New York Press.
Mark Cotter; Partner; EY. 2017.Video Business Case. (online).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ki5buDWNA4
Martin, Karen, and Mike Osterling. 2014. Value Stream Mapping. New York: McGraw-Hill
Education.

11
Organizations. 2010. Heidelberg: Springer.
Recardo, Ronald J. 2008. Organization Design. Amherst, MA: HRD Press.
The Relationship Between Organizational Structure And Organizational Ambidexterity. 2012.
GablerVerlag.
Turnbull, Katherine F, Richard H Pratt, John E Evans, and Herbert S Levinson. 2004. Traveler
Response To Transportation System Changes. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research
Board
VOLTI, RUDI. 2017. SOCIETY AND TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE. [Place of publication not
identified]: WORTH PUB.
Wang, Sping, and Elaine Lowe. 2005. Technological Change. Ottawa, Ont.: Nursing Study
Sector Corp.
Whitford, Josh. 2007. The New Old Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.