Table 1.

Factors and Levels Used in the Survey and Bayesian Model

		Factor Levels
Factor	Highest Rating	Middle Rating	Lowest Rating
Exploration of problem and customer needs	• Team talked to many customers to understand problem.	• Team experienced problem firsthand and knows it well.	• Team has neither experienced problem firsthand nor talked with customers. They have no data proving problem severity.
	• Personally experienced customer need.	• Have no data to prove severity.
	• Have data on severity.	• Did not involve customers.
Change agent prestige, commitment, and customer focus	• Change agent is committed to making project a success.	• Sees the project as a job and is being a good soldier.	• Does not support this project and is just going through the motions.
	• Has power and prestige.	• Has little power; has potential.	• Has no power or prestige.
	• Respects values of staff.	• Respects values of staff.
Source of ideas	• Key solution ideas came from outside the organization.	• Solution was based on successful models in other organizations.	• No attempt was made to learn from experience of other organizations.
	• Solution was then tailored to this organization.	• However, there was little tailoring to this organization' situation.
Funding	• Leaders committed money to support both problem solving and implementation.	• Either no money was needed or external source of funds was found.	• No money was committed and no external source is available.
Advantages to staff and customers	• Parties involved clearly understand the solution, feel it has many more advantages than disadvantages, and meets their needs well.	• The parties don't understand the solution and don't see its advantages or disadvantages or how it meets their needs.	• Clearly understand the solution, but believe it doesn't meet their needs and has fewer advantages than disadvantages.
Radicalness of design	• New process fits in with current philosophy and operation.	• New process seems very unconventional.	• New process seems unconventional to this organization and the industry as a whole.
	• Not a radical departure.	• Nothing like it in this organization.
Flexibility of design	• Proposed solution can (without hurting effectiveness) be easily modified to make it more appropriate for the setting.	• Design can be modified and still be effective, but it will be difficult (either for political or technical reasons).	• Design is very difficult to modify without hurting its effectiveness.
Mandate	• Leaders assigned a change agent, thought about the project carefully, clearly described the need and task, and set high performance expectations.	• Leaders initiated the project, assigned the change agent, but didn't clearly define need, task, or expectations.	• Leaders opposed the project from the start.
Leader goals, involvement, and support	• Regularly involve/inform leaders.	• Regularly involve/inform leaders.	• Solution conflicts with leadership goals.
	• Solution helps meet their goals.	• Leader goals not met by solution.	• Some leaders state opposition and are working to defeat.
	• Managers spend time and resources to support.	• Leaders endorse project but are not spending time or resources.
Supporters and opponents	• Supporters will gain much more than opponents will lose if the project succeeds.	• Opponents and supporters are about equal in what they stand to lose or gain.	• Opponents stand to lose much more than supporters stand to gain.
Middle manager goals, involvement, and support	• Regularly involve/inform managers.	• Regularly involve/inform managers.	• Solution conflicts with middle manager goals.
	• Solution helps meet their goals.	• Their goals not met by solution.	• Some are working to defeat the project.
	• Managers spend time and resources to support.	• While they don't oppose it, they don't actively support it either.
Tension for change	• Staff hate current situation and believe change is essential.	• Most feel no need to change, but a few very influential members feel change is essential.	• Staff feel no need to change.
			• They feel they have more to lose than to gain with new process.
Staff needs assessment, involvement, and support	• Team knows staff needs	• Staff leaders believe project doesn't meet their needs.	• Staff leaders believe project conflicts with its needs.
	• Solution meets some of the needs.	• They won't actively support or oppose it.	• They will fight the new process.
	• Staff wants solution.
Evidence of effectiveness	• Concrete evidence exists that the new process worked well in an organization like this one.	• No strong evidence that the new process will work, but experts believe it will work.	• Strong evidence that the new process failed when tried in organizations like this one.
Complexity of implementation plan	• Implementation plan is very simple; all understand it.	• Plan is complex but everyone understands it.	• Plan is vague and complex.
	• Implementation schedule and task assignments are detailed and clear.	• Schedule and tasks are carefully designed and clear.	• Schedule and task assignments are not clear.
		• A pilot test was conducted.	• No pilot test was conducted.
Work environment	• Leader roles, organization structure, incentives, and staffing already support the change well.	• Roles, organization structure, incentives, and staffing were modified to support the change.	• Leader roles, organization structure, incentive systems, and staffing are not set up to support the change.
		• Changes have not been tested.
Monitoring and feedback	• A specific method exists to get honest staff and customer feedback and use it to improve the process.	• No system to obtain and use staff and customer feedback.	• No feedback system exists.
	• Data on performance of new process will be collected.	• However, organization has culture of open communication with staff.	• Communications with staff are strained.
		• Will collect performance data.	• No process performance data collection is planned.
Staff changes required	• Job changes are few and clear.	• Some job retraining will be needed.	• Many job changes are needed.
	• Staff has needed skills.	• Protocols training program and materials are difficult to understand.	• There will be no protocols, training, materials, or coaching.
	• Excellent protocols and training materials were developed.	• Coaching is available.
	• Coaching is available.