Analysis of Employee Compliance Execution When Digitizing Paper-Based Food Safety Logs

Leading and Managing Change: Analysis of Employee Compliance Execution When Digitizing Paper-Based Food Safety Logs
Across Multiple Deli Departments

Objective: Critically analyze, critically analyze, critically analyze and ongoing change process (change project) in an organization, like a structural change of a department or a change initiative.
Context: Deli employees of a grocery retail company https://www.rosauers.com/ are only completing (15%-25%) of their daily food safety logs.
The main reason, apparently, is because they are short-staffed across their 20+ deli departments since the pandemic. Hence, several Deli employees currently claim they do not have time to manually record the information on the paper logs because they barely have time to run the operation (deli departments) and serve customers. Conversely, store managers assume and insist that because Deli employees are already verifying daily food safety checks (checking cooking temperatures, hot holding temperatures with their Deli handheld thermometers), employees should be able to simply record those daily food safety checks on paper, and also that Deli supervisors should delegate and manage their departments better. On top of that, corporate wants to digitize the Deli paper-based food safety logs to centralize compliance visibility and enhance accountability. Moreover, senior management is planning to accomplish that by piloting with a software company called https://foodready.ai/ within the next 2 months. Leadership recently updated the Deli food safety logs (see attached logs) and evaluated those changes to obtain feedback in four stores for two weeks. However, only one store fully assessed the new food safety logs and gave feedback. The other three stores tested the updated logs partially (30-50% of the time). Deli managers explained they did not have time to complete them.
Some corporate leaders fear this will happen when the logs are digitized. But others believe that having centralized visibility and monitoring of log execution could help drive food safety regulatory compliance as well as protect customer’s health and company reputation.

IMPORTANT NOTE: For this assignment, please remember that this is an analysis, not a description. You MUST critically analyze this ongoing change process (hereafter: change project) in this organization.

1. INTRODUCTION (5%): Main themes, issues, and phenomena should be included in the case study.
2. CHANGE PROJECT (10%):
   i. What went on in the change project you are describing?
   ii. What were the context, the content, and the process of change?
3. LITERATURE REVIEW (30%): Offer coherent argument that integrates reflectively the different parts of the literature under review. Your use of theory will determine a lot your final mark, so do invest in this section. Make sure to utilize at least 3 of the following models:
   i. Kotter’s 8-step change model
   ii. Lewin’s 3 step model
   iii. Galbraith’s star model
   iv. Greiner’s organizational development model
   v. William Bridges’ Transition Curve
4. APPLICATION (50%): This is the most value-added section of the assignment. Demonstrate your ability to tie together the conceptual and the empirical material by critically addressing each of the following FIVE questions:
   i. How do these concepts, models, theories, or perspectives that I earlier reviewed help me to understand better the
   phenomena at hand? → If your analysis is a repetition of the case, then you are not obviously adding value
   ii. How should I make sense of the phenomena I have described by drawing on the relevant literature? → If your analysis is a
   repetition of the case, then you are not obviously adding value
   iii. What practical implications does this better understanding have for the way the case study characters should (or might) have approached the issues and problems described in the case study? → If your analysis is a repetition of the case, then you are not obviously adding value
   iv. What are the gaps or shortcomings in theory that you discovered that prompts you to discover the limits or boundary
   conditions of existing theories? → If your analysis is a repetition of the case, then you are not obviously adding value
5. CONCLUSION (5%): Lessons learned and analyzed phenomena reflection