Business Analysis: Solving Problems With Job Demand-Control Theory

Overview of the Business Problems

Solve a business problem using a theoretical framework informed by empirical academic studies.

Business analysis is defined as a research discipline which deals with the identification of business needs of a particular group or organization and provision of solutions to those problems. It often involves taking a holistic view of the situation in an organization, evaluation of possible actions required to improve the business system (Ahmed & Mohamed, 2017).

This paper provides an overview of the Galiffrey Inc., report analysis based on the change initiated from office plan to an all open plan, discussing the positive and negative aspects of the overall plan change as well as providing recommendations for the company pertaining the information gathered from the staff about their views on the plan. The analysis also employs job demand-control theory for more explanation

Gallifrey Inc. is a multi-award-winning company known for its creative inventions and services. The company has been in operation for about ten years with around 19 staff members. The headquarters of the studio is located in Brisbane. The company offers a broad range of services to its clients with majority of them from Sydney and Melbourne cities. Gallifrey Inc. services involve graphic designs, digital and media services as well as brand identity. It can work on one component to meet the expectations of its customers and stakeholders. Their administrations include mark identity, realistic design, advanced services, and networking administrations. The organization’s staff is composed of one managing director, particular case studio and preparation manager, eight designers, two IP barristers, particular case advanced producer, a venture manager, two task managers, three ecommerce masters and four administration staff (Jayanthi & Vishal, 2011).

The Gallifrey Inc. implemented change on the plan layout structure of the office to an open plan where all offices were located in one large space. The managers, administration assistants, designers, IP barristers, ecommerce specialists and project managers could work in one common place and that no one could have a separate office of their own. The chief director officer initiated the plan with the expectation that the change in the office plan structure could in one way or another increase collaboration and productivity.

It was perceived that the plans could increase collaboration among the members since the working space will be centralized and also increased productivity leading to greater achievement of the organization goals as well as the objectives resulting to increased profitability level. However, as result of the change in the plan structure, some issues aroused. For instance, the staff members complained of noise disruptions and clients claimed that they lacked privacy while being attended to in the open plan office. The structure with separate offices was viewed by the clients to be more confidential (Jim & Annelie, 2014).

Overview of Literature on the Topic

The open-plan office has turned into the overwhelming decision while thinking about workspace systems, fundamentally for financial reasons. Less inside dividers (and encased offices) allow bigger floor plans to be accomplished, which enable more prominent quantities of representatives to be obliged. Expanding the thickness of laborers housed inside an office space through open plan setups has subsequently turned into an essential strategy through which associations endeavor to diminish overheads. Higher office densities enable generous funds to be made in either rental, land or fabricate expenses and lower services (e.g., warming and ventilation) and security charges. Mirroring these reserve funds, the most recent figures demonstrate a 40% expansion in normal office compactness (Liwen & Jingkun, 2015).

Cost reserve funds can likewise be acknowledged through an expansion in adaptability. It is far simpler to move furniture around in an extensive open-plan office than inside encased offices. This adaptability decreases the expenses of future rearrangements, with work areas promptly rearranged as individual and authoritative necessities change, for instance, undertaking groups change or new innovation is required. People and groups can likewise be sorted out around work processes and departmental groupings, empowering justifications, for example, the brought together capacity of gathering documents and work material.

This theory deals with occupational stress of an employee which is related to job demands and resources. This model incorporates the working conditions of a particular organization and employee expectations. Unlike the other models, this theory applies to all job specifications. The assumption of this model is centered around job demands and job resources. Job demands relate to the physical or organizational aspects that require employee effort or skills indoor to be sustained whereas job resources are associated with factors such as emotional demand and work pressure. Job resources refer to those essentials needed to achieve organizational goals, stimulate growth and facilitate learning and development (Maiorescu, 2017).

For instance, employees engage more in work when the work place resources are favorable. The physical and social resources are both necessary for employee well-being and engagement. The Galiffrey Inc. changed its office structure to an open plan system, this however varied the resources available for the employees leading to both positive and negative outcomes. Job resources can influence motivation or employee work engagement based on the conservation of resources theory. It can also influence the output of employees especially when the working environment is disruptive. Working in an environment full of distractions distorts the employee concentration leading to a lower productivity.

Job Demand-Resources Theory

From the data obtained from engagements conducted with the Galliffrey Inc. staff members, the following were found out to be the promising factors of the general change in the office plan to an all open structure.

This is one of the greatest benefit of an all open plan office structure. The staff members are likely to share more ideas and ask for more input when they work in the same space. There is no moving from one office to another or making phone calls to inquire for something from fellow worker. The technology has advanced with more communication tools on board like the HipChat and Slack, but these are not so much effective compared to socialization between human beings. Furthermore, in-person communications in the work place are psychological thus increasing the productivity level of an organization resulting to increased profits. The change in office structure of the Gallifrey Inc. increased collaboration among the workers as they were able to interact and work together to achieve the organization goals (Maruscia et al, 2017).

This is another benefit of working in an open plan structure. The staff members will be in a position to build more relationships among themselves. The employees can be reached more easily and accessible unlike the office plan structure where each employee would work from their office making approachable difficult. It brings all the workers to a common ground because they will get to know and understand each other well. However, when concentration is required, this has to be controlled. The company, after initiating the change, was able to increase staff relationships and interactions as the staff members attested. Some of the workers, mostly new employees interacted with other staff through joint meetings.

The all open plan structure is more economical because it is more possible and less costly to provide more spacious working spaces for new employees. Also, it is more economical when paying for bills such as electricity or even heat and air conditioning and other employee welfare facilities (Muhammad, Shamsudin & Ul Hadi, 2016).

Distractions

Natschläger & Geist (2013) argue that when all the organizations’ work is centralized in an all open structure, distraction cases are increased. For instance, noise distraction is a major concern associated with open office layouts. Whenever distractions occur, it becomes difficult to complete tasks in time. Also, and individual will take a lot of time to settle back to what they were initially doing. Noise distractions lower the concentration level of an employee or any other person leading to lower productivity which in turn leads to low profitability level in an organization.  In the Gallifrey organization, some of the employees were really dissatisfied, like the barristers and project managers. They preferred the old plan structure compared to the open plan.

Positive Impacts

The distractions emerged where one of the workers typed so loudly, at times the workers could discuss about Television programs while others were busy with the organizations work, also phone calls were another concern, especially the admin calls. The administrative personnel had to make and receive calls without no objection as there was no other alternative or place to make such calls. Their voice tones really caused disturbances to the other employees affecting their power and level of concentration. It also led to incompletion of tasks thus they were not able to meet deadlines. The project manager also raised a concern that the communication with the clients was inappropriate as they could not hear him well.

Lack of Privacy

This is also another negative impact of an open structure (Osei-Kyei, Albert & Ernest, 2017). For instance, some employees might not feel comfortable working in such open places and feel that they are being watched, monitored and judged while doing their tasks. Some employees are shy about speaking in public places and others are not interested in asking questions and so they chose to remain quiet or silent. For instance, one of the workers expressed how he felt while working near the manager and even thought that he was being monitored. This also has an impact on the client’s side. Some client issues need some privacy which the open plan office structure doesn’t offer.

Disease spread

Diseases are likely and easily to be spread in open plan office structure. Basically, diseases such as common cold are easily spread because everyone in the office breathes the same air. An employee of the company raised this concern and proposed that work should be flexible so they could work at home when such outbreaks occur (Rosalind, 2004).

Job Resignation

This is also another impact as far as open plan structure is concerned. Employees in an organization may not be happy about the changes that the firm may initiate (Rothaermel, 2013). At times, an employee may feel intimidated about the change initiated by the management. If the desired change cannot meet their expectations or feel comfortable, then they resort to resigning the particular job. An employee of the Gallifrey organization became dissatisfied with the change initiated and sought for a job in a company with office plan structure.

According to Giles & Yates (2014) contention that basic pragmatists ought to embrace research methods that best answer their research questions, contextual analysis researchers commonly join distinctive information gathering methods so results can be triangulated. Hence, the researcher utilizes perception and meetings to investigate the genuine conduct of workers and the records that representatives make about their conduct. Recorded information, for example, hierarchical reports, outlines of authoritative structure, floor plans, and photographs of the office space, are likewise assembled as foundation data, and to twofold check real claims made by members amid interviews and casual discussions.

Negative Impacts

Although a few researchers, such as Satish & Rajesh (2014) who have led subjective or qualitative studies have straightforwardly watched how workers collaborate in open-plan offices, most research is review based and quantitative. Subsequently, researchers have been not able to watch how the procedure of coordinated effort unfurls in open-plan offices. This proposition included three separate information accumulation adjusts as exhibited in the table below.

The initially round (Data 1) primarily gathered information through subjective, semi-organized meetings. Talking was finished with open-finished inquiries utilizing examining inquiries and shutting question. What’s more, unstructured member perception journals, adroit messages, and email interviews were utilized. The second round (Data 2) included two workshops in which the underlying suggestions were co-made together with the individuals from the association. The last round of information accumulation (Data 3) included exchanges with the organization’s administration and co-making the last proposals with them.

The following are possible suggestions to help the company manage the all open plan; the organization should come up with an alternative way of making phone calls for the administration, may be a separate office for the administration team. This will help reduce the phone call distractions to the other teams, thus increasing their concentration level. Moreover, the organization should come up with better work conditions and make the work more flexible so that employees could work at home when the job place working environment is not conducive like when there is a disease outbreak. The management team should implement office etiquette or rules that govern employee engagement and working in the office.

Ahmed A. O. & Mohamed F. K., 2017. Accounting students’ perceptions of important business communication skills for career success: An exploratory study in the Tunisian context. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting, 15(2), pp. 208-225.

Giles, D. & Yates, R., 2014. Enabling educational leaders: qualitatively surveying an organization’s culture. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 11(5), pp. 94-106.

Jayanthi R. & Vishal B., 2011. Role of knowledge management and analytical CRM in business: data mining based framework. The Learning Organization, 18(2), pp. 131-148.

Jim A. & Annelie A., 2014. Deconstructing resistance to organizational change: a social representation theory approach. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, pp. 342-355.

Liwen T. & Jingkun D., 2015. The frontier and evolution of the strategic management theory: A scientometric analysis of Strategic Management Journal, 2001-2012. Nankai Business Review International, 6(1), pp. 20-41.

Luciane R. & Reinaldo G., 2013. Relationships between environment, culture, and management control systems. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 12(3), pp. 219-240.

Maiorescu, R. D., 2017. Personal public relations and celebrity scandals: A cross-cultural analysis of Twitter communication in the aftermath of Johnny Depp’s accusations of domestic violence. Journal of Communication Management, 21(3), pp. 254-266.

Maruscia B., Marcelo F., Lucineia H. T., Violeta S. & Hung P. C. K, 2017. Business process point analysis: survey experiments. Business Process Management Journal, 23(2), pp. 399-424.

Muhammad I., Shamsudin F. S. & Ul Hadi N., 2016. How Important Is Customer Satisfaction? Quantitative Evidence from Mobile Telecommunication Market. International Journal of Business and Management, 11(6), pp. 57-69.

Natschläger C & Geist V., 2013. A layered approach for actor modelling in business processes. Business Process Management Journal, 19(6), pp. 917-932.

Osei-Kyei R., Albert P.C. & Ernest E. A., 2017. A fuzzy synthetic evaluation analysis of operational management critical success factors for public-private partnership infrastructure projects. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 24(7), pp. 2092-2112.

Rosalind, W., 2004. Fraud after Roskill: a view from the Serious Fraud Office. Journal of Financial Crime, 11(1), pp. 10-16.

Rothaermel, F. T., 2013. Internal Analysis: Resources, Capabilities, and Activities. In: Strategic Management Concepts & Cases. s.l.:Mc-Graw Hil.

Satish K. M. & Rajesh P., 2014. Business Research in India. Journal of Management Development, 28(4), pp. 68-74.

Seuring S. & Stefan G., 2012. Conducting content?analysis based literature reviews in supply chain management. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 17(5), pp. 544-555.

Stefania B., Armando C., Massimo G. & Nathan L. G., 2016. Combining modelling and simulation approaches: How to measure performance of business processes. Business Process Management Journal, 22(1), pp. 56-74.

Venancio T. & Musa M., 2014. Board structure and supplementary commentary on the primary financial statements. Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 15(3), pp. 273-290.

Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:

Turnitin Report

Formatting

Title Page

Citation

Outline

Place an Order