1. 1
8
Analysis of Organizational Behavior Issues in IT
Implementation Project at Bremerton, Inc.
Abstract
In this paper, we will refer to the case study of Bremerton, Inc.
(BI) to discuss some common pitfalls in organization structure
caused by power mismanagement and inefficient organization
hierarchy. Firstly, the issues in the case study project will be
correlated with organizational behaviors that caused them. Then
several alternative organizational behaviors and structures that
could have prevented these issues will be discussed and support
for the argument will be derived from classic Organizational
Behavioral Theory. Our team has identified power abrogation,
overly-redundant organizational hierarchical structure, incorrect
delegation of authority and power, and failure to use empirical
data to identify the issue as key organizational behavioral issues
in this case study.

2. Analysis of Organizational Behavior Issues in IT
Implementation Project at Bremerton, Inc.
BREMERTON INC. (BI) is a worldwide integrated financial
services company utilizing over 1000 individuals. It works in a
profoundly competetive showcase condition where piece of the
overall industry relies on name acknowledgment and comfort
and flexibility of administrations and items. Following the
traditional methods of practice and maintain the structure seems
to be a big problem withing the organization. Accountability
and transparency is important in any and every line of work.
Introduction
Current Situation (OB Issues)
The major problem with the organization is the lack of visibility
that causses distrust and this is the vital thing that needs to be
dealt with in addition to the below hierarchical issues, recorded
beneath, likewise were uncertain:
1. Defining the marketable strategy to bolster and legitimize
Threshold: As we have talked about finally somewhere else,
there was contention and likely legitimate difference about the
reasons for Threshold from a business perspective.
2. Deciding the way of thinking and general bearing of the
upgraded IT framework abilities: Key executives secretly
discussed whether exchange handling ought to be done halfway,
or locally. The choice had significant financial and execution
results. Issues of unwavering quality, cost, and client
inclinations made a vague image of how best to move toward
framework design. Without strong information, it was workable
for every official to bolster either elective.
3. Responsibility for business items and administrations: Since

3. the business course for both Bremerton and Threshold were not
yet characterized, the variety of new items and administrations
was additionally indeterminable.
4. Conceivable disposal of current business items,
administrations, and procedures: Many may get out of date.
Who ought to choose which, assuming any, of these may be
changed or suspended, and who might control the ones that
remained involved some concern and specubtion.
5. Everyday administration and structure of Threshold: The
COO, EVP-Operations, also, SVP-Development all had a stake
in how, and who, might really execute Threshold. Choices had
to be made on who might run Threshold gatherings, who might
visit, how the outstanding burden would be dispersed, and who
would control which parts of ihc advancement exertion. We
found a serious level of political moving and indccisivcness
inside the Bremerton official gathering on these issues.
Methodology
Every official had their possess need list for items and
administrations that required growing, however who should
control or choose these was dependent upon much hypothesis
and secretive quibbling. An essential contradiction rose among
showcasing and activities over control and close down of new
items. The CEO can allocate the corresponding legitimate power
and then let everyone execute it through the corresponding
cocerive or reward power.
Problem Identification and Strategic Analysis
Problem Definition
The main issue in the case study can be understood according to
social cognitive framework of the organization behavior studies.
There should be a reciprocal interaction between social,
behavioral and environmental aspects at an organization, but in

4. this case, the middle management desired a goal, and behaved
with the expectation to achieve that goal but neglected the
effect of that behavior on environment of the organization. This
created an environment which in turned distorted the cognition
of more managers in the hierarchy causing an organizational
behavioral issue.
Further, the issues of Bremerton, Inc. continue to exacerbate
due to the resulting single-loop learning (defined by Argyris),
as the decision makers within the company did not attempt to
identify the underlying issue but continued to treat the
symptomatic behavior by ignoring the cause that resulted in the
power vacuum.
A complete SWOT analysis of the organizational culture should
have been done, identifying the problematic goals, policies,
frameworks and strategies that caused the issue and determining
the correct course of action to rectify them.
SWOT Analysis
Organizational culture refers to the unspoken cognitive rules
established within a company due to actions of all or majority
of its employees and managers. SWOT Analysis can not only be
used to analyze the measurable factors such as skill, funds,
resources available for the organization but also used to analyze
the srtrengths and weaknesses of the organizational culture
which is not easily quantifiable.
In this case, SWOT analysis for the internal environment of the
organization is as follows:
· Strengths:The organization has necessary resources- skilled
workers and infrastructure needed to achieve the objective.
· Weaknesses: The organizational cultural is not aligned with
the goals of the company. The policy by CEO does not divide
the responsibilities to the relevant departments or clearly
communicate the steps to achieve the goals set by him. This
results in ambiguity of who is responsible for what and how
should a objective be achieved. A clear feedback loop on the
progress of the project and decisions by management is absent.

5. This absence of defined monitoring policy resulted in redundant
work, lisuse of financial and skilled resources.
Lesson Learnt – Relevant Concepts/Tools
Position power can be used to describe such a scene, because
CEO's decision caused his power to be taken away. If legitimate
powers are not correctly assigned, it might cause lack of
management, inconsistent information, and lack of cooperation
among different departmetns, which will lead to chaos in the
company.
Conflict arises when contract is broken. Everyone has the need
for power, but too much power will cause inequality of rights
across departments. Each department needs to perform its own
duties, and then report to CEO to ensure that CEO has finial
decision-making authority on all major issues.
Recommendation
Proposed
Solution
s
The political issues happened in Threshold project mostly
caused by leadership vacuum of the CEO which creates
assumption and competition between the COO, EVPs, and SVPs.
The project ended up with an absence of clearness who held
power, no one had authority to hire, fire, promote, compensate
or allocate resources.

6. The current organization chart of Bremerton clearly showing the
chaos already, such as: Finance and HR department reports to
COO, and VP-IT reports to SVP Development. We were
discussed on how the structure should look like based on best
practices from other organization. In our opinion, COO
shouldn’t oversee IT, Human Resources, and Finance function.
Those functions should be independent and report directly to
CEO. In addition, SVP Development should be part of EVP
Marketing team because the function is related with commercial
aspect.
During kick-off meeting, CEO as the project sponsor should
communicate clearly on the project charter which includes:
goals/objectives, timeline, resources, team member
responsibilities, and performance evaluation/metrics to
determine whether they are succesfull or not. HR team should
be involved in the team as well, so they can support on
resources allocation, hire more people if needed, and be the
neutral person who can help resolve conflicts between team
member.
Implementation Plan
The steps to composing implementation plan usually are
straightforward, however the real process isn’t simple or quick.
There are several important components need to be included:
· Major Tasks: describe specific major tasks and objectives in
implementation.

7. · Timeline/Schedule: roughly put the deadline for each tasks.
· Resources List: supporting tools, facilities, software/hardware,
manpower, etc.
· Documentation:supporting documents need to be stored where
everyone can access and review.
· Success Criteria: define the criteria which can indicate the
project completion.
· Sign-off: indicate whether they need senior leadership
approval before moving forward to execution.
This plan need to be shared with everyone, so they can keep up
the transparency with different groups and the executives.
Monitoring Plan
There are two types of monitoring plan:
· During Implementation: after defining the major tasks, they
can breakdown the tasks into smaller actionable tasks. Evaluate
the milestone for each task and report the issue in regular basis,
so everyone will aware how healthy the project is.
· Post-implementation: define the goals to measure the success
of change. Compile report of issues/findings, so company can
use this as future improvement references.
IP2.1
This week, you have considered technologies (specific
applications or tools, etc.) and the technological capabilities
(types or categories of technologies) available or appropriate

8. for each level of government within the United States—national
or federal, state, and local. You have also explored the necessity
and potential limitations for all levels, sectors, and arenas
involved in homeland security/crisis management to achieve
interoperability.
The National Response Framework (NRF) expressly outlines
roles and responsibilities for various levels of government;
these levels include not just the political leaders and
administrations but also associated agencies. At the federal
level, for example, DHS, FEMA, FBI, and DOD—among
others—often play a marked role in all stages of crisis-response
planning and management. At state levels, one can find the
following (among others): state homeland security and/or
emergency management offices; state highway patrol
departments; state bureaus of investigations; state
environmental, labor, or hazardous materials divisions. Local
communities will also have regulatory agencies, commissions
created by political leaders, task forces, interagency groups,
citizens committees, and much more. Importantly, these many
distinct entities spread across these levels also require unique
technologies and capabilities.
Remember one more thing: all disasters are local. This means
that the local community is normally the initial site of a crisis,
incident, or disaster. Per the NRF, communities are expected to
respond to the best of their capabilities and request help only

9. when given resources are exhausted. In many cases, these
requests for assistance are specific, covering specific
needs. Local communities request resources from their
intrastate regions or the state; states may request resources
they’ve exhausted or don’t possess from neighboring states
and/or the federal level.
For this unit’s assignment, you will use the Minnesota Bridge/
I-35W Collapse of 2007 as a case study.
Assignment Guidelines
· Address the following in 5 pages:
· What are at least 3 forms of technology that made or could
have made a significant difference in saving lives, lessening
suffering, and/or protecting property? Explain in detail.
· Describe each of the 3 technologies (specific form or class of
capabilities). Discuss in detail.
· Which level(s) of government did employ or should have
employed this tool or capability? Explain.
· Who specifically used it (or should have)? How did they use
it? Explain and be specific.
· How did each tool or type of technology make—or would have
made—a significant impact in the management of this crisis?
Explain.
· Emphasize the ability to save or protect lives and property
· Note the technologies you choose for this assignment may
have been used or not.

10. · They must be real, existing capabilities or tools that you will
probably have to research specifically, not just “cool” ideas in
need of invention or development.
· Conclude your paper by arguing how and when technology is,
or is not, a force multiplier for incidents such as the Minnesota
Bridge Collapse, and support your arguments with evidence, not
opinion.
· Your final product should be well organized, well written,
employ good mechanics, and be clear and persuasive. All
information used that does not solely reflect original thought
must be properly cited with appropriate references provided.
· Be sure to reference all sources using APA style.