Drucker（2005）「處在劇烈變動的時代，我們無法駕馭變革，只能設法走在變革之前。」這說明了未來管理的一大挑戰，就是要讓組織成為變革的領導者，將變革視為機會。對成功的企業而言，變革可使企業拋棄過去成功的原理，重新創造未來；對未成功的企業而言，可利用變革抓住成功的機會。由此可見，變革對企業的必要性，組織變革的目的即是希望組織成長。 個案公司資訊部門，面對企業的成長與產業競爭，為滿足客戶的交易需求與企業即將步入全球化的發展，在2004年至2006年進行組織變革。該主管試圖從組織運作模式組織結構設計的改變提升組織價值，支援各部門運作且進一步幫助公司達成目標。但組織變革在2007年宣告失敗，組織運作模式又再次回復以往作法。 本研究主要在探討造成個案公司資訊組織變革失敗的原因。透過研究者參與個案觀察，瞭解組織變革歷程，並採用深度訪談法進行訪談且將訪談內容進行語幹分析資料歸納。本研究發現下列幾點結論： 一、 部門分工但未將業務職掌區分清楚，造成部門間隔閡與對抗。 二、 該主管缺乏與組織成員維持互動、建立夥伴關係及經營人脈。 三、 直接移植套用成功的模式，但配套條件尚未完備。 四、 忽視資訊人員對技術喪失的職業焦慮。 五、 部門的KPI定義明顯方向偏差。 Drucker (2005) advocates that in the time of dramatic changes, while one cannot control the changes, one should proceed ahead of the changes. Basically, it means that the future challenge of managers is to treat the changes as opportunities. A successful enterprise facing a change may want to discard the principles that it used to take for granted, and to recreate new ones. Thus, the purpose of organization restructuring is to achieve future growth. In this case study, the company was in a growth stage, facing intense market competition and plunging into the globalization trend. In order to satisfy the requirements of the company and its customers, the information technology (IT) department launched a bold organization transformation in 2004 that lasted for three years. The IT manager attempted to improve the department’s value through organizational restructuring. He also attempted to better support operations in user departments, in order to help the company to achieve better competitive position. However, the organization transformation program screech to a halt in 2007, and the IS department returned to the status prior to the change. This case study attempted to understand why the organization transform endeavor failed. Data related to the changes were collected through company documents, participant observation and in-depth interviews. Analysis of the data was carried out using thematic analysis. Conclusions of the study are as follows: 1. Task ambiguities across departmental boundaries resulted in communication barriers and inter-departments confrontation. 2. The IT manager failed to maintain interpersonal interactions, build up partnership with sub-ordinates, and manage his social relationship. 3. The IT manager attempted to replicate successful model, but failed to build up necessary facilitating conditions. 4. The separation of duties among departments caused a reduction in job richness and technical contents in jobs, in turn resulted in severe anxiety among the technical staff. But this was over looked. 5. The definition of Key Performance Indicators caused the department to focus and invest in wrong directions.
