# A Continuous Monitoring and Reallocation Method for Successful Decisions in Change Management
## 4 Experiments and Results
### Second Experiment: Algorithm Implementation  
In the second experiment, the hypothetical company uses 100 workers for 100 corresponding tasks (\(n=100\)) in order to evaluate the effectiveness, efficiency, and computational complexity of the proposed CoMoRe method on a more extensive dataset. The change period, in which human behavior in the change phase was simulated, remained at 15 intervals (\(T=15\)). Following the same process as in the first experiment, the algorithm was applied for 100, 1.000, 10.000, and 100.000 repetitions. The results of the total performance obtained using the CoMoRe and CCMM methods are compared in Table 8.  
Table 8 shows that in all experiments (for 100, 1.000, 10.000, and 100.000 repetitions), the average total performance starts (\(t=0\)) with an initial value of 9900 in both methods. From \(t=1\) to \(t=7\), the overall performance obtained with the proposed CoMoRe method begins to be significantly better than that achieved with the CCMM method. At \(t=7\) (for 100.000 repetitions), the lowest total performance has a value of 6560 for CoMoRe versus 2950 for the CCMM, which is a critical value for the change process. In the next time step, the performance starts to increase. At \(t=12\) (for 100.000 repetitions), the total performance for the proposed CoMoRe method is 10070 and has exceeded the initial total performance (9900), while the total performance for the CCMM is 5850, significantly less than the initial total performance. Thus, the new desired state, which improves performance over the initial state, has been reached in a shorter time (\(t=12\)), representing a 20% time reduction. Figure 5: Average of human resources reallocations. The results of the Total Performance Improvement (defined in Equation (10)) with the CoMoRe and CCMM methods are compared in Table 9 below. As demonstrated in Table 9, the CoMoRe method provides a significant improvement compared to the CCMM method in all cases. At the critical time periods of \(t=7\) and \(t=8\), where a lower total performance is observed, the CoMoRe method achieves a significantly better result, approximately 122% improved compared to the CCMM method. It is also important to emphasize that in the second experiment with the larger allocation problem (\(n=100\)), the improvement rates were higher than in the first experiment \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Total Performance**} \\ \hline
**Repetitions** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**100**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**1.000**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**10.000**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**100.000**} \\ \hline
**Time (_t_)** & **CCMM** & **CoMoRe** & **CCMM** & **CoMoRe** & **CCMM** & **CoMoRe** & **CCMM** & **CoMoRe** \\ \hline
0 & 9900 & 9900 & 9900 & 9900 & 9900 & 9900 & 9900 & 9900 \\
1 & 8941 & 9766 & 8949 & 9767 & 8950 & 9767 & 8950 & 9767 \\
2 & 6773 & 9198 & 6795 & 9198 & 6802 & 9197 & 6800 & 9197 \\
3 & 5320 & 8454 & 5343 & 8458 & 5352 & 8458 & 5350 & 8458 \\
4 & 4472 & 7838 & 4495 & 7844 & 4501 & 7843 & 4500 & 7843 \\
5 & 3822 & 7318 & 3845 & 7325 & 3851 & 7327 & 3850 & 7326 \\
6 & 3274 & 6859 & 3294 & 6869 & 3300 & 6870 & 3300 & 6870 \\
7 & 2921 & 6548 & 2943 & 6560 & 2950 & 6561 & 2950 & 6560 \\
8 & 2921 & 6548 & 2943 & 6560 & 2950 & 6561 & 2950 & 6560 \\
9 & 3269 & 6941 & 3294 & 6949 & 3300 & 6950 & 3300 & 6950 \\
10 & 3819 & 7582 & 3845 & 7588 & 3850 & 7589 & 3850 & 7588 \\
11 & 4767 & 8759 & 4794 & 8766 & 4800 & 8766 & 4800 & 8765 \\
12 & 5823 & 10,070 & 5846 & 10,072 & 5849 & 10,070 & 5850 & 10,070 \\
13 & 7269 & 11,946 & 7301 & 11,946 & 7299 & 11,945 & 7300 & 11,945 \\
14 & 8924 & 14,088 & 8947 & 14,088 & 8951 & 14,087 & 8949 & 14,087 \\
15 & 10,581 & 16,198 & 10,595 & 16,192 & 10,602 & 16,192 & 10,600 & 16,190 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: Comparison of total performance results for 100, 1.000, 10.000, and 100.000 repetitions between the proposed CoMoRe method and the CCMM method for 100 workers and tasks (\(n=100\)).