Change Management Indicators and Their Applications in Strengthening the Process and Learning Organization Levels

Abstract

(1) Background: This study is aimed at determining the strengthening process level, the learning organization level, and the indicator of change level among District Education Offices (PPDs’). This study aims to investigate the perceptions of the Head of District Education Officers and their use of change indicators in enhancing District Education Offices and their learning organization practices. (2) Methods: By using a mixed-method approach through an explanatory sequential design, a survey was conducted and 93 Head of District Education Officers throughout Malaysia were selected using the survey method through questionnaire. To identify the respondents, the study employed group sampling and strata random sampling techniques and the data analysis was conducted using the Statistical Packages for Social Sciences software. Then, the qualitative study involved five Head of District Education Officers and two Program Managers who were chosen through purposive and snowball sampling. Through semi-structured interviews, data were then collected, and themes were formulated and analyzed using Nvivo 11. (3) Results: The results of the descriptive analysis show that the strengthening process level, the learning organization level, and the change indicator level in the District Education Office, are all high. Thus, the research findings illuminate six theme of change indicators, i.e., namely, Head of District Education Officers Roles and Responsibilities, Program Manager Roles and Responsibilities, School Improvement Partner+ (SIP+) Roles and Responsibilities and School Improvement Specialist Coaches+ (SISC+) Roles and Responsibilities, Performance Dialogue, Provision Management, Key Performance Indicators (KPI), Dashboard and PPD Excellence Rating. (4) Conclusions: This study offers insights into how the PPDs’ can utilize, as a reference for monitoring, the implemented changes in the District Transformation Program, to see if they are on the right track, and also as treatment to deal with any conflicts or issues in the transformational programme.

1. Introduction

The District Education Offices (PPDs’) have been given decision-making authority, flexibility, and accountability in performing duties and enabling effective school planning. The Malaysian Education Development Plan (PPPM) 2013–2025 is aimed at improving the delivery system’s access, efficiency, equity, quality, and unity towards a better policy. Thus, the PPDs’ are a crucial organization as they are the closest to schools.

The District Transformation Program is a deliberate effort to expedite the improvement of school performance, which is guided by the District Education Offices. In this regard, the decline and increase (decentralization) in power and authority allows for the smooth and confident duties by the officials involved [1]. Thus, PPDs’ authorization can increase the effectiveness and efficiency of a program that is intended towards aspiration of education. The encouraging influence due to the execution of the District Transformation Program has improved achievements and has positioned Malaysia in the middle of the TIMSS participating nations list. Furthermore, the International Student Assessment Program (PISA) 2015 states that Malaysia’s achievement has increased in the three main domains of Math Literacy (446), followed by Scientific Literacy (443), and Literacy Reading (431) [2], showing only 50 score points from the average of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The impact also showed the resulted in the success of Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2015, where Malaysia shows the highest upsurge amongst sixteen countries showing an increase in science (44 points) than TIMSS 2011 [3].

According to [4], school leaders utilize indicators that serve as a “red flag” to alert them when management is off course and to intervene if necessary, signaling the need for immediate corrective action in the organization to guarantee that it is moving in the correct path. In the same vein, [5] stated that without a change indicator, it is tough to explain the effectiveness of a program or policy; therefore, the indicators created will serve not only as the foundation and benchmarks for rating and empowering PPDs’ as a learning organization, but also for ongoing training. Additionally, to measure the success of the desire requires a specially designed indicator to see changes that have been implemented at various levels in the education system. Indicators can also be a warning signage to the organization to act immediately in implementing changes in the organization.

In addition, the lack of organizational leadership in educational institutions has also led the leader to focus only on the concentration of power, lack of two-way communication, and non-open. Indirectly, learning organization can improve the quality of production or services rendered more efficiently to customers, increase staff commitment and job satisfaction, improve efficiency and delivery systems, and enhance the effectiveness of change management. According to [6] there are several benefits and interests for learning organizations if practiced in an organization. This has led to a lack of knowledge and skill sharing among heads and staff, and no teamwork practices put in place to implement change. Therefore, the Head of District Education Officers needs to equip themselves with the latest knowledge and skills as well as up-to-date information in order to act efficiently and quickly in line with the dynamic change in education and become the PPDs’ of a learning organization.

Research Background

The Empowerment theory [7] was employed in empowering the PPDs’ where access to information, support, resources, and opportunities would have an impact on job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and service effectiveness. The District Education Office (PPD) strengthening, power, and responsibility delegation from the Ministry of Education (MOE) to PPD requires high accountability to ensure effective implementation [8]. According to [7], power is the key force in the empowering process, which is believed to be increased and developed if the power is shared with the subordinates. Similarly, [9]’s study illuminated that empowerment increases job satisfaction among nursing students.

In addition, the strengthening process also involves access to resources; such as materials, time, and tools to achieve the District Transformation Program (DTP)’s goals. Access to resources in this context is that the PPD is given the autonomy to manage their finances according to the schools’ need most required in planning initiatives and program. Support elements like the SISC+ (School Improvement Specialist Coaches) and SIPartners+ (School Improvement Partners) need support and guidance from the Head of District Education Officers and Principals or Headmasters and vice versa. In addition, Head of District Education Officers, Assistant Head of District Education Officers, SIPartners+, and SISC+ will receive new roles, training, courses, and resources necessary for fulfilling their responsibilities. Delegation of power and responsibilities from the MOE to PPD also necessitates a relatively high level of accountability for tasks to be well implemented [8]. In addition, staff needs to be given clear understanding and information related to DTP in order for them to implement change as planned or intended. Head of District Education Officer’s need access to DTP information to either formally or informally.

Learning Organization Theory by [10] in his book “The Fifth Discipline” explains five principles of learning organization. The Personal Mastery is when an individual tries to increase his/her knowledge and focusses his/her energy on continuous learning. Then, Building Shared Vision is when members of the learning organization share the same vision, commitment and team work can be increased. The Mental Models is one’s internally rooted perception developed from general conclusions made, which must be controlled so that it would not hinder any progress intended to be achieved together. After that, Team Learning involves the process of exchanging and gathering information by a group of diversely experienced individuals. Lastly, Systems Thinking constitutes the learning organization’s cornerstone, which is the discipline that brings all other disciplines together, merging them into a unified body of thought and practice; the capacity of systems theory to grasp and handle the whole, and examining the interrelationships among components.

This is vital as conflicts will occur when members in an organization refuse to accept others’ opinion. Through delegation of power, leadership skills may also be acquired. The author in [11] stated that in a learning organization, the manager has to change his/her management style from directive of power to delegation of power. To ensure the change agenda in PPDs’, the learning organization’s environment needs to be given attention where all staff should have the knowledge and, thus, contribute to the PPDs’.

The District Transformation Program (DTP) implemented by PPD needs a change indicator to ensure that the change achieves its intended goal. The authors [12,13]’s Logic Model is an illustration of the running of a program where it involves planning (input/resource, activity) and desired outcome (output, and impact). The author in [13] further stated that the purpose of the Logic Model is to provide stakeholders with a map that explains the sequence of change events that connect the need of the program and the desired results. Change indicator can be used as a tool to measure the journey and achievement of a program. The author in [14] said that an indicator is a guide on how to measure the progress of a program or project according to its goals and objectives.

Furthermore, to observe how the PPDs’ are strengthened and the changes that occur, the component DTP as per the DTP Guidebook 3.0 [15] was used to base this study. DTP includes two main components, which are accountability and support. Support includes two domains: (i) empowering local leadership and (ii) supporting utmost schools in need. School Improvement Partners (SIPartners+) post was created to provide guide and support to Principals and Headmaster towards increasing leadership quality and organization management. Meanwhile, the School Improvement Specialist Coach+ (SISC+) is accountable for supervisory teachers in the direction of increasing the teaching and learning quality, in addition to assisting in teachers’ understanding of the policy, new curriculum, and assessment.

On the other hand, accountability includes two domains: (i) gaining quality, equity, and access; and (ii) monitoring discipline, action taking, and problem solving. The gain in access, quality, and equity components will use the performance of MOE on “Dashboard” and PPD Excellence Rating (PKPPD) in giving attention to intervention in attaining the Key Performance Indicator (KPI). The monitor discipline, action-taking, and problem-solving components are based on the Performance Dialogue (Dialog Prestasi or DP), a forum that is conducted at all MOE to school levels to discuss education performance grounded on information and evidence, tracked by discussion on education performance.

This study primarily aims to identify the strengthening process level, learning organization level, and the indicator of change level on the District Education Office (PPDs’). Then, this study also aims to dig into the perceptions of the Head of District Education Officers of the use of change indicators in enhancing District Education Offices and their learning organization practices

2. Materials and Methods

This study uses a survey method using the questionnaire from the Questionnaire-I and II (CWEQ) revised version by [16], The Learning Organization Questionnaire for Schools [17], the Transformation Program 3.0 (DTP) book that involves appropriate literature reviews. A panel of three experts participated in the validity of the instrument, namely, the face validity and the validity of content validity. Additionally, a pilot study involving 30 Head of District Education Officers (KPPDs’) was carried out, yielding a Cronbach’s Alpha value of 0.792, which is deemed sufficient and good as suggested by [18,19]. Next, the study selected 93 Head of District Education Officers from different five zones, namely, east, north, east, central, and south Malaysia, via group and random sampling. The research employed descriptive analysis to determine the indicator changes, whereas inference analysis, for instance, correlation, and regression, was used to determine the relationship and contribution of the variables. The Statistical Packages for Social Science (SPSS) version 2.2 software was used in analyzing data.

Meanwhile, the qualitatively study used a Multiple Case Study to explore the change indicator and learning organization at PPD. Through semi-structured interviews, data were collected from the participants, who were chosen using purposive sampling and through a snowball sampling. Six Head of District Education Offices and one State Education Department were first purposively identified to represent the four zones of Peninsula Malaysia (North, South, East, and Central). Next, seven officers were selected (five Head of District Education Officers and two Program Managers), who had direct involvement with the change implementation to strengthen PPDs’ through DTP. Besides being able to make reflections and give clear explanations [20], the participants were also knowledgeable and experienced in not only the implementation of change but also the SISC+ and SIPartners+ programs.

In addition, according to [21], instrument validity is crucial for ensuring that both the instrument and data are accurate. Furthermore, the participants were given interview transcriptions as a technique of member inspection to confirm that the responses given were precisely transcribed with an accurate interpretation of data and correct development of themes, generally aimed at ensuring data validity. Prior to that, the interview protocols were validated by three experts. Gardner (1995) in [22] recommends that Kappa values of more than 0.70 are obtained before conducting further analysis. If the values are lower, it is important that the researcher discusses the definition of each construct with the expert as well as the data for depicting what the construct means. Thus, this study used Index Analysis of Cohen Kappa Coefficient to indicate the reliability of categories, themes, and sub-themes drawn from the interviews. To assess the emerging themes, the researcher gathered three qualitative experts’ views and calculated the consensus value of intercoder appointed experts. The results showed that the average Kappa coefficient approval value for the three experts was 0.822, this value being very strong, as per Landis and Koch (1977) in [22]. Subsequently, the researchers used Nvivo 11 to administer the data based on the themes based on the framework and research questions.

3. Results

3.1. The Level of Learning Organization and Strengthening Process in the District Education Office

Table 1. Level of Learning Organization and Strengthening Process.

Construct for Learning Organization	Mean	Level Explanation
Personal Mastery	4.77	High
Mental Models	4.31	High
Shared Vision	4.76	High
Team Learning	4.66	High
Systems Thinking	4.61	High
Overall	4.62	High
Construct for Strengthening Process
Information	4.65	High
Support	4.71	High
Resources	4.48	High
Opportunity	4.84	High
Accountability	4.81	High
Overall	4.70	High

depicts the learning organization’s practice level in the District Education Office was high (mean = 4.62). Among five principles of learning organization, personal mastery was the highest (mean = 4.77) followed by shared vision (mean = 4.76), team learning (mean = 4.66), system thinking (mean = 4.61), and mental models (mean = 4.31). Hence, the result also shows the strengthening process of the District Education Office in managing change was high (mean = 4.70). Among the five elements of strengthening process, the highest element was opportunity (mean = 4.84), followed by accountability (mean = 4.81), support (mean = 4.71) information (mean = 4.65), and resource (mean = 4.48).

3.2. Level of Learning Organization and Strengthening Process in the District Education Office

Table 2. Change indicator level in the District Education Offices.

Construct for Learning Organization	Mean	Level Interpretation
Planning (Activity)
Head of District Education Officers Roles and Responsibilities	4.67	High
Program Manager Roles and Responsibilities	4.66	High
SIP+ Roles and Responsibilities	4.68	High
SISC+ Roles and Responsibilities	4.72	High
Provision Management	4.69	High
Performance Dialogue	4.71	High
Planning (Activity) result	4.68	High
Expected Outcome
Key Performance Indicators (KPI)	4.58	High
Dashboard	4.58	High
PPD Excellence Rating (PKPPD)	4.67	High
Expected Outcome Result	4.60	High
Change Indicators Result	4.67	High

shows the change management indicator level in empowering the District Education Offices, which indicates a high level (mean = 4.67). Specifically, the planning (activity) components recorded the highest mean score with 4.68 followed by 4.60 from the expected outcome. This implies the proper implementation of the change management indicators in the District Education Offices.

For component planning (activity) with indicators that include the Head of District Education Officers’ roles and responsibilities, the Program Manager’s roles and responsibilities, including those of School Improvement Partners+ (SIPartners+), School Improvement Specialist Coaches+ (SISC+), Performance Dialogue, and allocation management. Based on the analysis results, the roles and responsibilities of SISC+ recorded the highest mean score with 4.72, then came the Performance Dialog with 4.71 and allocation management with 4.69. This includes the SIPartners+ roles and responsibilities with a mean of 4.68 with those of the Head of District Education Officers (mean = 4.67), while the lowest mean score for the six planning (activity) was the role and responsibility of the Program Manager (mean = 4.66).

Meanwhile, Key Performance Indicator (KPI), the Dashboard, together with the Excellence Rating of the District Education Office (PKPPD) indicators denote the desired output components. In detail, based on the analysis results, the Excellence Rating of the District Education Office recorded the highest mean score (mean = 4.67), whereas the Dashboard was strongly seconded by a majority of 68 people (73.0%) (mean = 4.58). However, the Key Performance Indicator (KPI) was the lowest (mean = 4.58) of the three indicators.

3.3. Change Indicator for the Strengthening Process of the PPDs’

The first objective is aimed at exploring the change indicator for strengthening the PPDs’ over the DTP. The results indicated nine themes that is A to I as follow:

A. 

Head of District Education Officers Roles and Responsibility

The four sub-categories for roles and responsibilities are as follows:

i. Empowering School Leadership

ii. Chair the Performance Dialogue

iii. Implement Instructional Guidance Model

iv. Involvement of External Bodies

i	Empowering School Leadership
	To empower the local leadership at PPD, TPEN1 said that: “…so, we’re going to get the School Administrators; the two school administrators are the Principal Headmaster himself and the senior leaders. So, that is one component of finding local leaders; school leadership” (TPEN1).
ii	Chair the Performance Dialogue
	Furthermore, the Head of District Education Officers roles and responsibility is to chair Performance Dialogue as described by PP5: “My own performance dialogue, I am responsible for handling this because of the issue, we PPD itself has to be greatly responsible so we are unable to pass it on to others” (PP5).
iii	Implement Instructional Guidance Model
	Apart from that, to implement the DTP in detail, the Head of District Education Officers must employ the Five Steps Instructional Guidance Model: Focus on Specific Aspect of Teachers’ Needs and Students’ Performance; Conduct Guidance Session; Monitor Action Plan; Identify the Exact Issues and Data Analysis; Ensure School Implement Action. TP3 mentioned that it is important to concentration on the teachers needs as well as students’ performance: “So, our focus is more on those who are in the red school band 5” (PP4). “All heads of the sector are involved with the integrated school visits and we observe not only the school administration and academics but also all areas” (TPEN2). “Meaning we focus on school” (TP3). While, TP3 said that conducting guidance sessions takes place in the morning and afternoon: “... indeed, every morning will go to school. Yes, KPPD (Head of PPD)... at 8 o’clock he will go out he will go to school according to his schedule then later in the evening he is in the office in terms of personal guidance there” (TP3). TPEN2 further described the monitoring of action planned conducted by Head of District Education Officers: “We all go to school to check everything out, what need to do for improvement” (TPEN2). While PP3 Identify the exact issues and data analysis: “First, we are based on data. We analyze our strength. From our data we will look at the trends. baseline is the TOV (Take off Value) and at the year we measure what has been achieved” (PP3). Besides that, TPEN1 said they have ensured school implement action: “Ok when we’re go down (to the school) there maybe we’ll ask schools to take action, and in JPN there may be actions taken by the other sector” (TPEN1).
iv	Involvement of External Bodies
	PP5 mentioned that the Head of District Education Officers roles and responsibilities should likewise involve external parties: “I also organized a National Blue Ocean Strategy (NBOS) programme with the Institute of Teacher Education (IPG) that involved nearby universities such as UMK (Universiti Malaysia Kelantan) in these contexts” (PP5).

B. 

Roles and Responsibilities of Program Managers

These sub-categories for the roles and responsibility Program Manager’s, namely:

i. Monitor, Measure and Report Schools’ Performance to PPD;

ii. Manage Continuous Follow Up and Improvement;

iii. Plan Support Program and Intervention;

iv. Attending Briefing on Role.

i	Monitor, Measure and Report Schools’ Performance to PPD
	As indicated by TPEN2 and TP5, to execute a Program Manager’s roles, it is important that the Assistant District Education Officer monitors, measures, and reports the school’s performance: “This is for monitoring data usage for school improvement, for instance, as we monitor the data of student attendance, so we are with the school” (TPEN2). “Next, setting the target and monitoring school performance was also viewed as part of the DTP” (TP5).
ii	Manage Continuous Follow Up and Improvement
	Besides, TPEN2 indicated the need for the Program Manager to handle a unremitting complement and enhancement process: “…the process is that we take actions and then check to see how it went and if it had any effects.” (TPEN2).
iii	Plan Support Program and Intervention
	Additionally, TP5 and TPEN2 also indicated the need for conducting planning support program and intervention based on the data: “Planning an intervention plan that helps enhance school performance” (TP5). “….data are then used to intervene by means of interventions” (TPEN2).
iv	Attending Briefing on Role
	Apart from that, TP6 said attending a briefing on role: “…then we went twice with the new BPSH we know what our role really is” (TP6).

C. 

Roles and Responsibilities of SIP+ (School Improvement Partners)

The SIP+ roles and responsibilities are based on more specific sub categories:

i. Guide;

ii. Mentoring and Coaching;

iii. Training;

iv. Report.

(i) 

Guide

The SIP+ roles and responsibilities of as Guide are as follows:

(a) Schools Achievement;

(b)Guide based on the School Needs;

(c) Guide School Leaders;

(d) School Visit.

a	Schools Achievement
	As indicated by S1, the SIP+ roles and responsibilities include the provision of coaching as per the school achievement: “SIP will likewise observe the same aspect as SISC: schools with bands five, six, and seven. In such a case that the education district does not have schools with band six and band seven (lower bands), the SIP+ will visit the schools with the lowest band because that is where we (SIP+) will go in the DTP” (S1).
b	Guide based on School Needs
	Apart from that, TPEN1 said that SIP+ provides guidance as per the needs of the school: “Some teacher needs more guidance so the SIP+ need to go more often and maybe some teacher the SIP+ go once and the teachers have make changers. So the SIP+ does not have to guide many times” (TPEN1).
c	Guide School Leaders
	Besides, TP1 also indicated the need for SIP+ to lead the school leaders: “At the school level, SIP will help with administration. So, when that is what we require, we will send SIP+ to offer further guidance” (TP1).
d	School Visit
	Besides that, TPEN2 said SIP+ need to visit the schools: “Then we visit the low performing schools which involved interruptedly all officers in JPN. The low performing school in this area which are band 7 and band 5 we make a leadership visit to this schools” (TPEN2).

(ii) 

Mentoring & Coaching

Mentoring & Coaching

SIP+ roles and responsibilities as mentor according to TP5 and TP6: “Then we as SIP+ at PPD provide support through mentoring” (TP5). SIP+ roles and responsibilities for mentoring as stated by TP6: “we invite teachers in certain groups to receive training in specific approaches, procedures, and so forth in relation to Teaching & Facilitating as 21st Century Education so the Mentors who become teachers Facilitator is our SIP and our capable SISC” (TP6). The SIP+ role is also as coaching as TP5 claimed: “SISC+ also as a coaching at schools” (TP5).

(iii) 

Training

Furthermore, SIP+ in the aspect of training; receive training and also give training:

(a) Receive Training;

(b) Provide (Give) Training.

a	Receive Training
	Apart from this, TPEN2 and TP1 indicated the need for SIP+ to attend training (Receive Training) for the implementation of DTP. “For SIP+ there is a newly appointed official who is putting the programme into effect” (TPEN2) and “IAB is now heavily guiding SIP+ with SIC. He is a new person going to the IAB training to learn about the several types of DTP that leads the Principal and Headmaster of a school” (TP1).
b	Provide (Give) Training
	TPEN2 further indicated needs for the SIP+ staff to offer (Give) the Training: “...and in terms of our officer’s competency we are also conducting data analysis workshops as part of our department’s workshops to administer performance dialogues, this is part of the empowerment of our department’s officers” (TPEN2).

(iv) 

Report

	Report
	Finally, it is important that SIP+ prepares the necessary reports. “...as Head of PPD, SIP+ plans and their (SIP+) movement reports are on my agenda; they will submit their movement reports once a week” (PP5). “... if in SIP SIC weekly will report to us (Head of PPD)” (PP2).

D. 

SISC+ (School Improvement Specialist Coaches) Roles and Responsibilities

The SISC+ roles and responsibilities are categorized as follows:

(i) Guide (Mentoring and Coaching);

(ii) Training;

(iii) Report.

(i)

Guide

The SISC+ roles and responsibilities as a Guide in Mentoring and Coaching include:

(a) Schools Achievement;

(b) Schools Need;

(c) Pedagogy Expert;

(d) Teaching and facilitating for 21st Century Education;

(e) Across All Subject.

a	Schools Achievement
	As admitted by PP4, Schools Achievement guiding based is necessary: “Since the focus of SIC+ is also to mentor band 5 and 6 schools; these bands are also our focus” (PP4).
b	Schools Need
	SISC+ guide based on Schools Need that was said by TEPN1: “So, the focus of SIC+ is to guide teachers who are having difficulties at school” (TEN1).
c	Pedagogy Expert
	Furthermore, SISC+ likewise offer supervision as a Pedagogy Expert (PP2): “...for SIC we give focus to pedagogy where in our audit we will look into the subjects in which performance falls short of what we already have set. (PP2)”.
d	Teaching and facilitating for 21st Century Education
	According to S1 on SISC+ as per guide for Teaching and Facilitating 21st Century Education: “We will often look into student group activity to observe 4C, which refers to Collaboration, Communication, Creative, and Critical Thinking. Teachers are considered to be applying 21st Century Learning if they are applying 4C…this means that students in the school are involving themselves with technology” (S1).
e	Across All Subject
	It is also imperative that SISC+ guides teachers Across All Subjects (TPEN1 & S1): “The SIC+ can guide the entire subjects; observing and guiding all of the subjects” (TPEN1). “Meaning if I am specializing in Mathis as a SISC+, I can also look into (guide) the Bahasa Melayu subject too. In this contact, we can guide of all teachers, we regardless of what subject the teachers teach” (S1).

(ii)

Training

SIC+ in the aspect of training; receive training and also give training:

(a) Receive Training

(b) Provide (Give) Training

a	Receive Training
	According to PP1 and TP1, the SISC+ Receives Training as well as Provides Training which was said by TPEN2: “IAB provides training for SISC+… because IAB is a training center which plays the role of training SISC+” (PP1). “Now SIP+ is with SISC+ were much train by IAB” (TP1).
b	Provide (Give) Training
	“... SISC+ we provide training internally for teachers …” (TPEN2).

(iii)

Report

	Report
	Subsequently, S1 indicated the need for SISC+ to report the program and intervention: “Like us (SISC+) coach at noon on a daily basis and the PPD will then require a report from us. Report of the intervention made for the school that we went (S1)”.

E. 

Performance Dialogue

All interview findings combined; the sub categories developed based on various perceptions on the implementation of the PPDs’ Performance Dialogue.

i. Problem Solving and Support;

ii. Review Performance Based on Data;

iii. Identify Problem;

iv. Focused Performance Dialogue;

v. Frequency of Performance Dialogue;

vi. Summary for Action.

i	Problem Solving and Support
	According to TPEN1, dialogues of performance facilitate support and problem solving: “So, we conduct a performance dialogue on a monthly basis to discuss any issues and we will subsequently guide them” (TPEN1).
ii	Review Performance Based on Data
	At the same time, PP3 said that performance dialogues enable review of performance based on data: “Okay here we have Performance Dialog, our performance dialogue based on our data, so we call schools administrators to come to PPD based on our data, we will discuss with them based on the data” (PP3).
iii	Identify Problem
	Performance dialogue also requires identification of existing problem; “This implies that, when we identify issues through our dialogue, we will definitely call the school to obtain some input” (PP5).
iv	Focused Performance Dialogue
	Furthermore, PP5 and TPEN2 sensed that the performance dialogue focused supports to progress Organizations of School: “We have the focus of enhancing the quality of the school and students; thus, the focus of what we do and what we do in Perlis is the performance dialogue” (TPEN2). “The performance dialogue becomes the main agenda in DTP actually, so based on focused performance dialogue” (PP5).
v	Frequency of Performance Dialogue
	Hence, the performance dialogue is conducted quite frequently: “So, every month we do performance dialogue to discuss any problems that we are facing…. minimum of 4 times every year” (TPEN1). “The performance dialogue is one of the DTP’s agenda items in which, as stated by the Ministry of Education, should be implemented 4 times (on a yearly basis)” (TP6).
vi	Summary for Action.
	Finally, the performance dialogue summarizes what has been discussed for actions to be taken in the future: “... summarize what needs to be done by the school, the results will be extended to the school and the school to do, and to make sure the school does or not then is the monitoring of the results of the performance dialogue” (TP5).

F. 

Allocation Management

Evidently, there are many perceptions of allocation management in implementing DTP.

The following entails the relevant themes:

i. Five Steps Intervention Plan (or Plan Intervensi Lima Langkah @PILL);

ii. Allocation from Education Performance and Delivery Unit PADU (or Unit Pelaksanaan & Prestasi Pendidikan);

iii. Financial Assistance from External Bodies.

i	Five Steps Intervention Plan (Plan Intervensi Lima Langkah @PILL)
	TPEN2 indicated the need for the entire allocation to be managed through the Five Steps Intervention Plan or PILL: “As for PILL, all proposals are submitted through PILL where PILL is an intervention plan. Next, the screening process will be conducted to determine which proposal can be accepted and what is the ceiling of all of the expenses” (TPEN2).
ii	Allocation from Education Performance and Delivery Unit PADU (Unit Pelaksanaan & Prestasi Pendidikan)
	Likewise, allocation was requested for programme implementation and expenses through Education Performance & Delivery Unit, Ministry of Education or well known as PADU: “... then we ask allocation from PADU…to allow us to conduct an intervention program as per the headmasters’ proposals. Then we will make paper for us to apply from PADU” (PP4).
iii	Financial Assistance from External Bodies
	In managing Allocation for DTP, there are PPDs’ that sought external assistance, for instance, from parliament members: “We in PPD have good support from a member of parliament. As we aim to accomplish the 21st Century Education in DTP 3.0, the member of parliament offers his support to us by donating LCD projectors” (S1).

G. 

Key Performance Indicators (KPI)

Data on the Key Performance Indicator from the interviews are based on six aspects:

i. Setting of District Education Office KPI;

ii. Urban and Rural Gap;

iii. KPI of Students’ Attendance;

iv. Academic Performance in Public Exam;

v. Improving School Band;

vi. Monitoring KPI.

i	Setting of District Education Office KPI
	TPEN1 indicated the need for the PPDs’ to exert their own Key Performance Indicator: “KPIs were given to us (PPD) by the Ministry of Education and then to the schools. However, since 2018, I need to look at school data for the percentage of KPI achievement of the school…the trend depends on how much achievement we want to make. Hence, every school has its own KPIs; a preliminary discussion is made for the year…how many KPIs can the school achieve on average? The State Education Department/PPD Putrajaya will have our school’s KPI. The KPI is now from the bottom up (schools)” (TPEN1). In setting KPI, the participant of this research TP3 stated that: “For setting KPIs, our culture is an increase of 3% of the previous achievement; however, we still need to provide reasons for the KPI to be reasonable. So, we provide the school discretion to set it higher or lower, but they must give justifications” (TP3).
ii	Urban and Rural Gap
	There is a KPI between urban and rural gaps as by research participant PP4 claims: “Our KPI entails bridging the gap between urban and rural schools in terms of academic achievement” (PP4).
iii	KPI of Students’ Attendance
	Apart from that, the KPI for students’ attendance should also be implemented: “The KPI attendance to schools is 95% so, if the school reaches 95% it is OK, we assume that the normal” (PP2). “One of the KPI is that the attendance of the pupils must be 95%” (TPEN1).
iv	Academic Performance in Public Exam
	Furthermore, PP5 stated the KPI for improving Academic Performance in Public Exams: “Our KPI primarily aims to improve our UPSR academic achievement; we have a UPSR assessment; the same goes for PT3 and SPM and STPM as our final focus” (PP5).
v	Improving School Band
	Besides, as mentioned by PP4, there is zero KPI in Band 5 and Band 6 schools: “To no longer have band 5 and band 6 schools is our target” (PP5). TPEN1 also mentioned the KPI to increase the number of Band 1 and Band 2 schools: “One of the KPI is to increase the number of Band 1 and Band 2 schools” (TPEN1).
vi	Monitoring KPI.
	In the meantime, PP3 and TP3 as research participants sensed that it has a necessity for monitoring the KPI: “So, you must look at the base line (KPI) to know whether or not we are making progress” (PP3). “Headcount is now the term used to monitor a PKKP (Peningkatan Kurikulum & Kemajuan Pendidikan) programme. This headcount does, in fact, have a 5-year profile and this allows us to keep track of the achievement and progress” (TP3).

H. 

Dashboard

Findings related to Dashboard which includes 3 categories, namely:

i. Display of Main Performance Indicator;

ii. PPDs’ Guide for Monitoring Schools in Districts;

iii. Data from Various Sources.

i	Display of Main Performance Indicator:
	(a) Students’ Attendance “First and foremost, student attendance is constantly monitored on the Dashboard and this will be updated in the system” (PP2). (b) Students’ Attendance “…now in the Dashboard they have added new thing that is Dropout where else before this there is no indicator in the Dashboard for Dropout” (TPEN1). (c) Assessment Result of Public and School Examination “This year it was changed to Assessment Report before this the report is in one piece of paper, before the report was just one piece of paper for example UPSR” (TP5). “We refer to exams (big data) such as mid-year, SPM, and so forth” (TP6). (d) School Grade Average (Gred Purata Sekolah/GPS) “... then the school grade average or average grade of each subject” (PP5). (e) Students’ Discipline “... this student's discipline must decrease discipline cases” (TPEN1). (f) Teacher Existence “Every time the performance dialog, the dashboard is being displayed. It’s a required agenda to display the current dashboard. Dashboard's include the teacher's existence” (PP5). (g) Malaysian Education Quality Standards Wave 2 (SKPMg2) "Because Dashboard are links with SKPMg2 (Malaysian Education Quality Standards Wave 2)" (S1).
ii	PPDs’ Guide for Monitoring Schools in Districts
	“WeinPPD have a guide called Dashboard...to assess how well the school follows the rules that have previously been established, for instance,studentattendance thatshows how many studentsare present on a daily basis and howmany studentsarepresent monthly. Then, how many teachers are there, how many teachers are inaschool how many percent, then the examination results, theschool’sgapbetween urbanand the rural areas, all can bemonitored andincludedin theDashboard” (TP5).
iii	Data from Various Sources
	“You can useit(Dashboard) butwe can alsoverify it with the original system source of origin. For instance, APDM (Aplikasi PangkalanData Murid or Student Database Application) is used to take student attendance, SSDM (Sistem Salah Laku Disiplin Murid or System of StudentDisciplineMisconduct) is used to monitor student discipline, whichthe PPDcanaccessfrom” (TPEN1).

I. 

PPD Excellence Rating

In rating PPD’s excellence, findings show the following:

i. PPD Self Star Rating;

ii. Star Rating Verification by the State Education Department (JPN);

iii. Dimension of Rating.

i	PPD Self Star Rating “The JPN will perform a self-assessment according to certain dimensions and, subsequently, we (PPD) will rate our self where we are… meaning how many stars we want to give rating to our own PPD” (TPEN2).
ii	Star Rating Verification by the State Education Department (JPN) “Yes, the JPN itself will verify it and the verification will be conducted again by BPSH (Bahagian Pengurusan Sekolah Harian or Daily School Management Division); the BPSH will visit PPD and among PPDs’ in the state, PPD with a 5-star rating will lead (the process)” (TPEN1).
iii	Dimension of Rating The three highlighted dimensions are as follows: a. Leadership “This dimension of leadership sees head of PPD officials and the deputy head of PPD understands their roles. So, there is a certain level of score from level one to level four” (TPEN1). b. Organization “60% of this rating entails the organisation itself including the entire PPD staff, which includes the officers and the subordinates” (TP2). “The organizational dimension means the head of PPD and all his officers. The first dimension of the second dimension is indeed PPD itself that is the organization” (TPEN1). c. Success of PPD “The success of PPD constitutes the third dimension, for example, the average grade obtained by a particular district, parent involvement (Sarana Ibu bapa), is there any national level achievement so there is a level of achievement” (TPEN1).

4. Discussion

The level of District Education Office (PPDs’) strengthening in managing the overall change is very high. Specifically, this study found that the dimension empowerment process was the highest in PPDs’, followed by dimensions of accountability, support dimensions, dimensions of information, and source dimensions. The findings of this study support many previous studies conducted by previous researchers. Among them are the study by [23], which examines organizational empowerment and lecturers’ organizational commitment levels at International Private Education Institutions in Thailand. Results found that the level of structural empowerment was at a high level where the opportunity dimension earned the highest mean value (mean = 0.676). Therefore, the study shows that the empowerment [7] has been successfully implemented in the field of education, and this is in line with Kanter’s own self-concept, which regards empowering employees, in which empowerment involves four elements, namely, access to information, support, resources, and opportunities in order to encourage formal power and informal power used to move the through these four elements. Based on the findings, the exceptionally high was recorded on organizational learning practice level at PPDs’. Specifically, Head of District Education Officer practices personal mastery with a collective vision, mental model, learning team, and system of thinking; thus, it can be inferred that the Head of District Education Officer has properly practiced the five principles of learning organization towards change management in PPDs’. This finding matches with a study by [24], which also demonstrated high level in an organizational learning practice in an outstanding school, where the individual learning aspect was vastly more adept than the aspect of organizational leadership.

To strengthen the PPDs’, it is imperative that the Head of District Education Officers delegate authority to leadership in schools by giving provision to schools via instructional guidance that comprises four main aspects, namely, concentrating on the school accomplishment aspects; serving schools by determining strategic issues based on data; supervising school leaders in day-to-day operations; and monitoring school-level implementation. These findings are in agreement with the study by [25], which demonstrated instructional leadership and its role in supervising and focusing on the curriculum to enhance school performance. The program manager should also play its role by accessing information for task planning in monitoring, guiding, or taking action to ensure the positive impact of intervention on the achievement of school. This also coincides with the study by [26], which shows the importance of information in making the learning environment more empowering in the context of health care practices.

In addition, guidance through planning based on data is among the roles and responsibilities of SIP+. SIPartners+ needs to employ coaching and mentoring to Principals and Headmasters based on three aspects, namely, through school achievement, mentoring for school improvement based on data, and the leadership of school administrators. Similar to the study by [27], positive impacts on staff are reflected by development training.

Meanwhile, the three main roles of School Improvement Specialist Coaches (SISC+) are guiding teachers in their PdPc by Coaching and Mentoring, skills training, and producing reports every week. This study also found that SISC+ guides teachers in low-band schools, which is in line with the study by [28] in which the emphasis of the guidance and mentoring program of SISC+ officers are Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) subjects that have been specified by the MOE, which prioritize schools of bands 4, 5, 6, and 7 (lower-performing). Evidently, the roles of SISC+ mark the change as a subject-matter pedagogy expert in implementing 21st Century Education. School management and performance may be impacted by support and guidance from SIPartners+ dan SISC+ to the Principals, Headmasters, and teachers; apart from job satisfaction. Similar to the findings reported by [29], SISC+ serves as a good mentor and this subsequently establishes good relationships with mentored teachers.

In order for the DTP to brand the PPDs’ as an organization where the combination of learning and discussion show a part in confirming that the organization can effectively identify and deal with any difficulties or problems, Performance Dialogue is, hence, significant. In corroboration with [24], the organizational structure and system must enable staff to establish working team environment that solves problems as a unit with a spirit that extends across entire fields or departments. To manage such a provision, PPD needs to implement a program planning and reach provision based on the approved PILL intervention. Subsequently, while implementing PILL, the Head of District Education Officers and the officials will discuss any related issues and the best interventions to be carried out. In general, these findings coincide with those reported by [30], where the headmaster gives space to his subordinates, i.e., teachers to give their thoughts and recommendations in meetings on how per capita grant aid (PCG) should be distributed across subjects, and then make joint decisions.

Further, the KPI specified by the MOE at PPD and schools’ level needs to be implemented and accomplished to ensure the consistency and synchronization of the goal of the system. For the setting of PPD KPIs as indicated by the JPN4 Program Manager, the KPI setting calls for a discussion with the school, which further calls for knowledge and communication to ensure the relevance and achievability of KPIs at the PPDs’, accordingly. The findings of this study coincide with [31] who stated that it is important for the organization leaders to concentrate on communication and knowledge to guarantee that the organization comprehends the relevant KPIs setting and KPIs monitoring as well.

Meanwhile, although the Dashboard performance can be used to collect relevant and accurate information for performance analysis, planning intervention, and prioritizing data-based actions, supporting data must be used to open the Dashboard due to a problem in the current data usage of the Dashboard. For instance, KPPD PPD5 uses the Student Database Application (APDM) as the supporting data to identify the relevant data on student attendance. However, some KPPDs’ stated that the Dashboard still needs improving, which may be due to system issues or poor access issues. Similar to the studies by [32, 33], teachers are unable to use Geographic Information Systems (GIS) in their classrooms due to the unavailability of the GIS software in schools as well as the need for infrastructure equipment for implementing PdPc with the help of ICT in the teaching of science. Finally, the PPDs’ also run the PPD Excellence Rating (PKPPD) as a relevant mechanism for measuring outstanding public service performance.

Overall, the primary trend identified in terms of learning organization practices is team learning, with visible information sharing in all involved PPDs’ where they regularly hold discussions such as morning briefings, Performance Dialogue, discussions in meetings, including other forms of discussion. Sharing of information likewise occurs when any organizational member learns something new about DTP, which is in line with [34] who showed that school teachers communicate feedback or educational information with one another, particularly when it comes to student achievement and activities related to learning and teaching improvement. This information sharing delivers new, accommodating skills for the staffs to perform their tasks. According to [11], team learning is a method of gathering information and sharing it with colleagues who have varying levels of experience, skills, and ideas. Evidently, leaders were also encouraging staff to actively participate in courses and staff too displayed efforts to attend these courses. As a result, the staff can enhance their knowledge and skills in performing their tasks. Similar to the findings reported by [35] on leadership practices at higher-performing schools, attending courses is an important part of improving the knowledge and skills of individuals.

Additionally, there is a shared vision in the discussions involving leaders and staff. As indicated by the Head of District Education Officers, vision sharing with the staff is a common practice, particularly on DTP-related matters. As a result of this sharing process, organizational commitment and teamwork spirit can be enhanced [36]. This supports the assertion made by [6] in which shared vision can inspire the staff to further contribute to organizational success. As for the implementation of changes in PPD, KPPD builds staff’s trust with friendly relationships by acknowledging the staff’s weaknesses and strengths, in addition to establishing good relationships among schools. The current research findings, thus, corroborate the findings reported by [37] that the practice of collaboration is able to speed up among school teachers on sense of belonging.

Meanwhile, according by Mental Models, the staff could envision the objectives of PPD, given what they understand about PPD, including the organization’s environment and implicit goals. To reach the aim of the strengthening process, all PPDs’ must implement changes that require everyone to create a favorable view. The system thinking was also apparent in the PPDs’, where the Head of District Education Officers described their competency in arriving at rather extensive decisions, as well as being competent in handling organizational issues within the PPDs’. In agreement with [38] on the empowerment process to establish a learning organization, this research illuminates that decision making indeed affects a learning organization.

The leader who is able to deal with change is one who has the right personality, behavioral attributes, and a sense of power [39]. A new leadership style should be adopted to confront the resistance to environment change [40]. A previous study by [41] suggests exploring as the best way to sustain high levels of change readiness, rather than to defeat change ‘resistance’. Some effort needs to be made in empowerment, to lead corporate future directions in a progressive society and vibrant economy [42]. A better local school governance understanding should involve all different levels and their relationships [43]. Otherwise, extra exploration enables a good understanding of the fundamentals of leadership, rather than the characteristics, skills, and leaders’ traits. The gap between change management and strategic performance can be filled by that change event [44].

Nowadays, technology digital transformation carries a lot of hurdles, chances, and changes for the economy and society. A study in Kuwait showed that there is an impact of change management in its combined dimensions (technological change, cultural change, structural change, and human change) on the employees’ performance in educational institutions [40]. This idea also similar with a study in Nigeria that shows that technological change gives a significant impact on employee performance [45]. The practical approach of a change management process for organizations is useful to strengthen the organization to holistically fit in technological change such as artificial intelligence in current frameworks [46]. This will provide a better holistic understanding of change management accomplishment based on the analysis of various organizational change models [47]. The diversity of change skills could increase the success rate of change initiatives. The change for organizations essentially is vital and important [48] especially in training among leaders. Qualitative findings confirm inadequate and inconsistent evaluation practices and a desire for ongoing support in evaluation training [49]. In addition, the relevance of several factors that affect organizational change management success can be explored in a different context of organizations and sectors. This is indirectly able to contribute to innovative ways of thinking, to enhance the leaders’ system thinking [50].

5. Implications

The DTP (District Transformation Program) serves as the main indicator for measuring and indicating the degree of change towards success because an indicator serves as a guide to describe the existing situation. In this regard, the change indicators will positively impact the State Education Department (JPN) and District Education Offices (PPDs’) in the implementation of the change program in particular. Furthermore, the indicator serves as an early intervention in identifying any issues or problems across the overall process of change implementation. Thus, the progress and performance of the DTP can be evaluated using change indicators in relation to the established mission and goals. Furthermore, the change indicators can assist the PPD staff and policy makers in monitoring that the DTP is on course with the Sixth Shift of the 2013–2025 Malaysian Education Plan. As such, positive or negative changes in the program’s operation will be identified, allowing for immediate actions to be implemented. The research findings are also beneficial to the MOE policy makers, namely the Aminuddin Baki Institution (IAB) for the planning of appropriate courses and training to be provided to all educators. This research is meaningful to the sector in understanding that Principals, Headmasters, and Teachers will benefit by having help and support from SIPartners+ and SISC+ in order to improve the performance of their schools. This also can be used as an indicator that is able to serve as initial pre-intervention, to give notice of any conflicts or issues in the transformational programme.

6. Conclusions

The results of this study can be seen to give positive insights and implications for implementing the District Transformation Program in empowering the District Education Office as well as to improve the level of learning organization practices. Results found that there have several change indicators that have been implementation in PPDs’, namely, the roles and responsibilities of the District Chief Education Officer, Program Manager, SIPartners+, SISC+, Performance Dialogue and allocation management, Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), and Dashboard and District Education Office Excellence Rating (PKPPD). Hence, there is a need for a change management indicator for strengthening PPDs’ in order to achieve the objectives of the DTP. The absence of an indicator is likely to be a hindrance to the process of monitoring change, besides raising issues associated with the DTP change benchmark. Hence, change indicators in the DTP serve as a ‘red flag’ for whether or not the implementation of change is on course. Despite the fact that learning organization practices comprise not just mental models, systems thinking, and shared vision, but also of team learning and personal mastery; team learning and personal mastery appeared to be the primary domain of practices in PPDs’. To strengthen the PPDs’ as a learning organization, all PPD staff must participate in ongoing learning. As a result, more qualified and highly skilled employees are required in order to ensure the effectiveness of PPD change, the learning organization’s environment must be considered, and all employees must be knowledgeable enough to contribute to PPD. This research is so meaningful to this sector because the findings can be used as strategy in improving key policy for the long-term care plan for PPDs’, especially by the strengthening process level, the learning organization level, and the indicator of change level. This is important to encourage the professionalisms and self-development among staff. For future research and focus, it would be interesting to carry out a comparison between multiple regions, such as comparing the analysis between American and/or European levels, by applying the same methodology. Further studies, taking into account the decentralization process that is increasingly taking place in education in both European and American countries, will need to be undertaken.