I'm stuck in thinking. Please help in with a viewpoint on this.

As Tom Harris, the plant manager of DuPont, and I, the change consultant, walked through the manufacturing areas of DuPont, Tom greeted each worker by name.

There had been changes, big ones, but the plant was still the plant. The Orlon manufacturing operation had been shut down, the equipment dismantled and sent to China.

The projectsgetting rid of one operation and installing anotherwere planned and executed just like any project.

Despite this change, despite their magnitude, the company was seen as doing the regular business of the enterprise.

No one framed the changes as needing unusual attention, so there was no change management design. Change management was not a rubric used to either accomplish or explain what was going on.

However, more changes were coming, whether there was any formal practice of change management or not.

I began the consulting fieldwork on the perspective of how the work culture would be built and that it might be able to help us develop people and continually improve.

Over the following months, I conducted interviews with workers and managers, spending time in the workplace, and learning about everyday life there.

This yielded a thick description of the shared stock of knowledge that organizational members used to interpret events and generate behavior.

What I discovered with this process was the local, widely used, every day, common-sense model of work performance, unique to this scene.

In a sense, this was my theory on the local organization and that people used for getting along at work.

Of course, this theory was more important than any imported academic theory of organization, because it had to work well or the users would not be successful in their work.

This was the practical theory in use every day and by everyone.

Throughout this plant, the local model of teamwork was organized around a southern stock-car racing metaphor, which was not only used to explain teamwork but was also the pattern for accomplishing it.

And since everyone knew the metaphor, and used it, it became so.

Tom and the other managers were surprised to learn of the NASCAR (the premier stock-car racing organization) metaphor, but it explained why they had not recognized existing teamwork in the workplace (they had a different metaphor for teamwork) and this gave them a language in which to introduce change for improvement.

Managers, particularly first-line supervisors formed a Leadership Core Team and were asked to use the metaphor to interpret the local meaning of effective work, capitalize on strengths to expand, and develop existing good practices in order to use in less troublesome problems, even if unsolved.

They were also instructed to introduce change as an experiment, to be tried and watched closely, and after a designated time, if it is not working as hoped, it can be stopped.

Tom embraced the framing of change as an experiment, and it was probably his most pervasive concept regarding change.

Framing changes as experiments require thinking through what is expected and how and when to measure the results.

And by interpreting the possible results before they happen, all outcomes can be positive. Even if things don't go as hoped, what does happen can yield learning.

"A notion I use all the time is that everything is an experiment. If you describe every change as an experiment, the ability of people to digest it goes up an order of magnitude. And that goes for officers as well as people on the shop floor. As a matter of fact, nothing is forever anyway."

Describe the steps that would to help manage change based on the action research.