Organizational Change
Change is an absolutely critical part of business. And yes, your company does need to change—preferably now and not later, when you have no other choice.
The problem is that people hate it when their bosses announce a “transformation initiative.” They run back to their cubicles and start frantically e-mailing one another, complaining that the changes are going to ruin everything
People love familiarity and patterns. They cling to them. The phenomenon is so entrenched it can only be chalked up to human nature. But while managing change can sometimes feel like moving a mountain, it can also be incredibly rewarding, particularly when you start seeing results.
Ultimately, implementing change comes down to embracing the following four practices:
1. Attach every change initiative to a clear purpose or goal. Change for change’s sake is stupid and enervating. Change should be a relatively orderly process, but for that to occur, people have to understand why change is necessary and how changes will affect them. This is easier, of course, when the problems are obvious—earnings are collapsing or a competitor has dropped prices 20 percent.
But sometimes the need for change isn’t immediately apparent. Competitive threats seem to be emerging, but you don’t know for certain, and still, you have to respond. In those cases, relentless communication about the business rationale for change, reinforced with lots of data, is the best ammunition you have.
The larger your company, the more challenging it will be to communicate the need for change. In big companies, calls for change are often greeted noncommittally. After all, if the company has been through enough change programs, employees will assume you’ll go away if they just wait long enough.
Stick to your guns—your solid, persuasive business case. Over time, logic will win out.
2. Hire and promote only true believers and get-on-with-it types. Everyone in business claims to like change. To say otherwise would be career suicide. But by my estimate, less than 10 percent of all businesspeople are true change agents. Once the next group—about 70 to 80 percent of people working in business—is convinced that change is necessary, they’ll say, “OK already, get on with it.” The rest are resisters.
To make change happen, companies must actively hire and promote only true believers and get-on-with-its. But with everyone claiming to like change, how can you tell who is for real?
Luckily, change agents usually make themselves known. They’re typically brash, high-energy and more than a little paranoid about the future. They often invent change initiatives on their own or ask to lead them. Invariably, they are curious and forward-looking.
These people have a certain fearlessness about the unknown. If they fail, they know they can pick themselves up, dust themselves off and move on. They’re thick-skinned about risk, which allows them to make bold decisions without a lot of data.
3. Ferret out and remove the resisters, even if their performance is satisfactory. This is the hardest of the four practices to implement. It’s tough to let anyone go, but it’s particularly difficult to fire people who are not actually screwing up and may in fact be doing quite well.
But in any organization, there are people who will not accept change, no matter how sound your case is. They are so invested—emotionally, intellectually, or politically—in the status quo that they cannot see a way to improve anything. These people usually have to go.
That may sound harsh, but you’re not doing anyone a favor by keeping resisters in your organization. They foster an underground resistance and lower the morale of the people who support change. They’re wasting their own time: They’re working at a company where they don’t agree with or share in the vision, and they should be encouraged to find one where they do.
4. Look at car wrecks. Most companies capitalize on obvious opportunities. When a competitor fails, they move in on their customers. When a new technology emerges, they invest in it and create product line extensions.
But to be a real change organization, you also have to have to look at bolder, scarier, more unpredictable events, assess the opportunities they present and make the most of them. Fostering this capability takes a certain determination, but the rewards can be huge.
Take the 1997 Asian financial crisis. Currency traders certainly capitalized on this awful event; they live on exploiting change. But they’re not the only ones who should do this. GE had real success buying undervalued Thai auto loans in this period. Others prospered by buying real estate at fire sale prices.
Bankruptcies are another type of calamity that reveals all kinds of opportunities. Of course, they’re tragic to the employees. Jobs are lost, and pensions disappear into thin air. But jobs and futures can also be created from the cinders.
With all the noise out there about change, it’s easy to get overwhelmed and confused. But these are the only four practices that matter. That’s it. There’s nothing to be afraid of.
Jack and Suzy Welch are the authors of the international bestseller Winning (Collins). Their latest book is Winning: The Answers: Confronting 74 of the Toughest Questions in Business Today (Collins). They are eager to hear about your career dilemmas and challenges at work and look forward to answering your questions in future columns. Please visit their new web site at www.welchway.com and submit questions through the online form at welchway.com/Contact-Us.aspx. Please include your name, occupation, city and country.
http://www.businessmirror.com.ph/home/pf/17334-principles-of-organizational-change.html
To really understand organizational change and begin guiding successful change efforts, the change agent should have at least a broad understanding of the context of the change effort. This includes understanding the basic systems and structures in organizations, including their typical terms and roles. This requirement applies to the understanding of leadership and management of the organizations, as well. That is why graduate courses in business often initially include a course or some discussion on organizational theory. This topic includes several links to help you gain this broad understanding. The following links (broadly reviewed in the following order) might be helpful to establish some sense about organizations, and their leadership and management.
http://managementhelp.org/org_chng/org_chng.htm
Major Types of Organizational Change
Typically, the phrase “organizational change” is about a significant change in the organization, such as reorganization or adding a major new product or service. This is in contrast to smaller changes, such as adopting a new computer procedure. Organizational change can seem like such a vague phenomena that it is helpful if you can think of change in terms of various dimensions as described below.
Organization-wide Versus Subsystem Change
Examples of organization-wide change might be a major restructuring, collaboration or “rightsizing.”
Usually, organizations must undertake organization-wide change to evolve to a different level in their life cycle, for example, going from a highly reactive, entrepreneurial organization to one that has a more stable and planned development. Experts assert that successful organizational change requires a change in culture – cultural change is another example of organization-wide change.
Examples of a change in a subsystem might include addition or removal of a product or service, reorganization of a certain department, or implementation of a new process to deliver products or services.
Transformational Versus Incremental Change
An example of transformational (or radical, fundamental) change might be changing an organization’s structure and culture from the traditional top-down, hierarchical structure to a large amount of self-directing teams. Another example might be Business Process Re-engineering, which tries to take apart (at least on paper, at first) the major parts and processes of the organization and then put them back together in a more optimal fashion. Transformational change is sometimes referred to as quantum change.
Examples of incremental change might include continuous improvement as a quality management process or implementation of new computer system to increase efficiencies. Many times, organizations experience incremental change and its leaders do not recognize the change as such.
Remedial Versus Developmental Change
Change can be intended to remedy current situations, for example, to improve the poor performance of a product or the entire organization, reduce burnout in the workplace, help the organization to become much more proactive and less reactive, or address large budget deficits. Remedial projects often seem more focused and urgent because they are addressing a current, major problem. It is often easier to determine the success of these projects because the problem is solved or not.
Change can also be developmental – to make a successful situation even more successful, for example, expand the amount of customers served, or duplicate successful products or services.
Developmental projects can seem more general and vague than remedial, depending on how specific goals are and how important it is for members of the organization to achieve those goals.
Some people might have different perceptions of what is a remedial change versus a developmental change. They might see that if developmental changes are not made soon, there will be need for remedial changes. Also, organizations may recognize current remedial issues and then establish a
Adapted from “Field Guide to Consulting and Organizational Development” – to obtain the entire book, select “Publications” at http://www.authenticityconsulting.com
Copyright; Authenticity Consulting, LLC 175 developmental vision to address the issues. In those situations, projects are still remedial because they were conducted primarily to address current issues.
Unplanned Versus Planned Change
Unplanned change usually occurs because of a major, sudden surprise to the organization, which causes its members to respond in a highly reactive and disorganized fashion. Unplanned change might occur when the Chief Executive Officer suddenly leaves the organization, significant public relations problems occur, poor product performance quickly results in loss of customers, or other disruptive situations arise.
Planned change occurs when leaders in the organization recognize the need for a major change and proactively organize a plan to accomplish the change. Planned change occurs with successful implementation of a Strategic Plan, plan for reorganization, or other implementation of a change of this magnitude.
Note that planned change, even though based on a proactive and well-done plan, often does not occur in a highly organized fashion. Instead, planned change tends to occur in more of a chaotic and disruptive fashion than expected by participants.
The levels of organizational change
Perhaps the most difficult decision to make is at what "level" to start. There are four levels of organizational change:
shaping and anticipating the future (level 1)
defining what business(es) to be in and their "core competencies” (level 2)
reengineering processes (level 3)
incrementally improving processes (level 4)
First let's describe these levels, and then under what circumstances a business should use them.
Level 1- shaping and anticipating the future
At this level, organizations start out with few assumptions about the business itself, what it is "good" at, and what the future will be like.
Management generates alternate "scenarios" of the future, defines opportunities based on these possible futures, assesses its strengths and weaknesses in these scenarios changes its mission, measurement system etc. More information on this is in the next article, "Moving from the Future to your Strategy."
Level 2 - defining what business(es) to be in and their "Core Competencies
Many attempts at strategic planning start at this level, either assuming that 1) the future will be like the past or at least predictable; 2) the future is embodied in the CEO's "vision for the future"; or 3) management doesn't know where else to start; 4) management is too afraid to start at level 1 because of the changes needed to really meet future requirements; or 5) the only mandate they have is to refine what mission already exists.
After a mission has been defined and a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) analysis is completed, an organization can then define its measures, goals, strategies, etc. More information on this is in the next article, "Moving from the Future to your Strategy."
Level 3 - Reengineering (Structurally Changing) Your Processes
Either as an aftermath or consequence of level one or two work or as an independent action, level three work focuses on fundamentally changing how work is accomplished. Rather than focus on modest improvements, reengineering focuses on making major structural changes to everyday with the goal of substantially improving productivity, efficiency, quality or customer satisfaction. To read more about level 3 organizational changes, please see "A Tale of Three Villages."
Level 4 - Incrementally Changing your Processes
Level 4 organizational changes are focusing in making many small changes to existing work processes. Oftentimes organizations put in considerable effort into getting every employee focused on making these small changes, often with considerable effect. Unfortunately, making improvements on how a buggy whip for horse-drawn carriages is made will rarely come up with the idea that buggy whips are no longer necessary because cars have been invented. To read more about level 4 organizational changes and how it compares to level 3, please see "A Tale of Three Villages."
One organization we consulted with has had a more positive experience with the incremental approach. We trained an internal facilitator, helped them deliver training in a just-in-time fashion, and had them focus on specific technical problems. The teams management formed reduced initial quality defects by 48%.
The disadvantages of such an incremental approach include avoiding structural, system-wide problems, and assumes existing processes need modest improvement. In addition, using incremental approaches can be frustrating to employees and management if (pick a buzzword) does not catch on in the organization. As a result of these disadvantages, many organizations experience a high risk of failure in the long run.
http://www.organizedchange.com/decide.htm
Business process reengineering (BPR) is, in computer science and management, an approach aiming at improvements by means of elevating efficiency and effectiveness of the business process that exist within and across organizations. The key to BPR is for organizations to look at their business processes from a "clean slate" perspective and determine how they can best construct these processes to improve how they conduct business.
Business process reengineering is also known as BPR, Business Process Redesign, Business Transformation, or Business Process Change Management. Reengineering is a fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of business processes to achieve dramatic improvements in cost, quality, speed, and service. BPR combines a strategy of promoting business innovation with a strategy of making major improvements to business processes so that a company can become a much stronger and more successful competitor in the marketplace.
The main proponents of reengineering were Michael Hammer and James A. Champy. In a series of books including Reengineering the Corporation, Reengineering Management, and The Agenda, they argue that far too much time is wasted passing-on tasks from one department to another. They claim that it is far more efficient to appoint a team who are responsible for all the tasks in the process. In The Agenda they extend the argument to include suppliers, distributors, and other business partners.
Re-engineering is the basis for many recent developments in management. The cross-functional team, for example, has become popular because of the desire to re-engineer separate functional tasks into complete cross-functional processes. Also, many recent management information systems developments aim to integrate a wide number of business functions. Enterprise resource planning, supply chain management, knowledge management systems, groupware and collaborative systems, Human Resource Management Systems and customer relationship management systems all owe a debt to re-engineering theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_process_reengineering
Business process reengineering (often referred to by the acronym BPR) is the main way in which organizations become more efficient and modernize. Business process reengineering transforms an organization in ways that directly affect performance.
The impact of BPR on organizational performance
The two cornerstones of any organization are the people and the processes. If individuals are motivated and working hard, yet the business processes are cumbersome and non-essential activities remain, organizational performance will be poor. Business Process Reengineering is the key to transforming how people work. What appear to be minor changes in processes can have dramatic effects on cash flow, service delivery and customer satisfaction. Even the act of documenting business processes alone will typically improve organizational efficiency by 10%.
How to implement a BPR project
The best way to map and improve the organization's procedures is to take a top down approach, and not undertake a project in isolation. That means:
• Starting with mission statements that define the purpose of the organization and describe what sets it apart from others in its sector or industry.
• Producing vision statements which define where the organization is going, to provide a clear picture of the desired future position.
• Build these into a clear business strategy thereby deriving the project objectives.
• Defining behaviours that will enable the organization to achieve its' aims.
• Producing key performance measures to track progress.
• Relating efficiency improvements to the culture of the organization
• Identifying initiatives that will improve performance.
Once these building blocks in place, the BPR exercise can begin.
Tools to support BPR
When a BPR project is undertaken across the organization, it can require managing a massive amount of information about the processes, data and systems. If you don't have an excellent tool to support BPR, the management of this information can become an impossible task. The use of a good BPR/documentation tool is vital in any BPR project.
The types of attributes you should look for in BPR software are:
• Graphical interface for fast documentation
• "Object oriented" technology, so that changes to data (eg: job titles) only need to be made in one place, and the change automatically appears throughout all the organization's procedures and documentation.
• Drag and drop facility so you can easily relate organizational and data objects to each step in the process
• Customizable meta data fields, so that you can include information relating to your industry, business sector or organization in your documentation
• Analysis, such as swim-lanes to show visually how responsibilities in a process are transferred between different roles, or where data items or computer applications are used.
• Support for Value Stream mapping.
• CRUD or RACI reports, to provide evidence for process improvement.
• The ability to assess the processes against agreed international standards
• Simulation software to support 'what-if' analyses during the design phase of the project to develop LEAN processes
• The production of word documents or web site versions of the procedures at the touch of a single button, so that the information can be easily maintained and updated.
The software we use by choice is Protos, a very comprehensive Dutch system that has been translated into English. Protos meets all the above requirements, and many more, and is better than any system originated in English that we have seen.
Conclusion
To be successful, business process reengineering projects need to be top down, taking in the complete organization, and the full end to end processes. It needs to be supported by tools that make processes easy to track and analyze.
http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/business-process-reengineering.html
The problem is that people hate it when their bosses announce a “transformation initiative.” They run back to their cubicles and start frantically e-mailing one another, complaining that the changes are going to ruin everything
People love familiarity and patterns. They cling to them. The phenomenon is so entrenched it can only be chalked up to human nature. But while managing change can sometimes feel like moving a mountain, it can also be incredibly rewarding, particularly when you start seeing results.
Ultimately, implementing change comes down to embracing the following four practices:
1. Attach every change initiative to a clear purpose or goal. Change for change’s sake is stupid and enervating. Change should be a relatively orderly process, but for that to occur, people have to understand why change is necessary and how changes will affect them. This is easier, of course, when the problems are obvious—earnings are collapsing or a competitor has dropped prices 20 percent.
But sometimes the need for change isn’t immediately apparent. Competitive threats seem to be emerging, but you don’t know for certain, and still, you have to respond. In those cases, relentless communication about the business rationale for change, reinforced with lots of data, is the best ammunition you have.
The larger your company, the more challenging it will be to communicate the need for change. In big companies, calls for change are often greeted noncommittally. After all, if the company has been through enough change programs, employees will assume you’ll go away if they just wait long enough.
Stick to your guns—your solid, persuasive business case. Over time, logic will win out.
2. Hire and promote only true believers and get-on-with-it types. Everyone in business claims to like change. To say otherwise would be career suicide. But by my estimate, less than 10 percent of all businesspeople are true change agents. Once the next group—about 70 to 80 percent of people working in business—is convinced that change is necessary, they’ll say, “OK already, get on with it.” The rest are resisters.
To make change happen, companies must actively hire and promote only true believers and get-on-with-its. But with everyone claiming to like change, how can you tell who is for real?
Luckily, change agents usually make themselves known. They’re typically brash, high-energy and more than a little paranoid about the future. They often invent change initiatives on their own or ask to lead them. Invariably, they are curious and forward-looking.
These people have a certain fearlessness about the unknown. If they fail, they know they can pick themselves up, dust themselves off and move on. They’re thick-skinned about risk, which allows them to make bold decisions without a lot of data.
3. Ferret out and remove the resisters, even if their performance is satisfactory. This is the hardest of the four practices to implement. It’s tough to let anyone go, but it’s particularly difficult to fire people who are not actually screwing up and may in fact be doing quite well.
But in any organization, there are people who will not accept change, no matter how sound your case is. They are so invested—emotionally, intellectually, or politically—in the status quo that they cannot see a way to improve anything. These people usually have to go.
That may sound harsh, but you’re not doing anyone a favor by keeping resisters in your organization. They foster an underground resistance and lower the morale of the people who support change. They’re wasting their own time: They’re working at a company where they don’t agree with or share in the vision, and they should be encouraged to find one where they do.
4. Look at car wrecks. Most companies capitalize on obvious opportunities. When a competitor fails, they move in on their customers. When a new technology emerges, they invest in it and create product line extensions.
But to be a real change organization, you also have to have to look at bolder, scarier, more unpredictable events, assess the opportunities they present and make the most of them. Fostering this capability takes a certain determination, but the rewards can be huge.
Take the 1997 Asian financial crisis. Currency traders certainly capitalized on this awful event; they live on exploiting change. But they’re not the only ones who should do this. GE had real success buying undervalued Thai auto loans in this period. Others prospered by buying real estate at fire sale prices.
Bankruptcies are another type of calamity that reveals all kinds of opportunities. Of course, they’re tragic to the employees. Jobs are lost, and pensions disappear into thin air. But jobs and futures can also be created from the cinders.
With all the noise out there about change, it’s easy to get overwhelmed and confused. But these are the only four practices that matter. That’s it. There’s nothing to be afraid of.
Jack and Suzy Welch are the authors of the international bestseller Winning (Collins). Their latest book is Winning: The Answers: Confronting 74 of the Toughest Questions in Business Today (Collins). They are eager to hear about your career dilemmas and challenges at work and look forward to answering your questions in future columns. Please visit their new web site at www.welchway.com and submit questions through the online form at welchway.com/Contact-Us.aspx. Please include your name, occupation, city and country.
http://www.businessmirror.com.ph/home/pf/17334-principles-of-organizational-change.html
To really understand organizational change and begin guiding successful change efforts, the change agent should have at least a broad understanding of the context of the change effort. This includes understanding the basic systems and structures in organizations, including their typical terms and roles. This requirement applies to the understanding of leadership and management of the organizations, as well. That is why graduate courses in business often initially include a course or some discussion on organizational theory. This topic includes several links to help you gain this broad understanding. The following links (broadly reviewed in the following order) might be helpful to establish some sense about organizations, and their leadership and management.
http://managementhelp.org/org_chng/org_chng.htm
Major Types of Organizational Change
Typically, the phrase “organizational change” is about a significant change in the organization, such as reorganization or adding a major new product or service. This is in contrast to smaller changes, such as adopting a new computer procedure. Organizational change can seem like such a vague phenomena that it is helpful if you can think of change in terms of various dimensions as described below.
Organization-wide Versus Subsystem Change
Examples of organization-wide change might be a major restructuring, collaboration or “rightsizing.”
Usually, organizations must undertake organization-wide change to evolve to a different level in their life cycle, for example, going from a highly reactive, entrepreneurial organization to one that has a more stable and planned development. Experts assert that successful organizational change requires a change in culture – cultural change is another example of organization-wide change.
Examples of a change in a subsystem might include addition or removal of a product or service, reorganization of a certain department, or implementation of a new process to deliver products or services.
Transformational Versus Incremental Change
An example of transformational (or radical, fundamental) change might be changing an organization’s structure and culture from the traditional top-down, hierarchical structure to a large amount of self-directing teams. Another example might be Business Process Re-engineering, which tries to take apart (at least on paper, at first) the major parts and processes of the organization and then put them back together in a more optimal fashion. Transformational change is sometimes referred to as quantum change.
Examples of incremental change might include continuous improvement as a quality management process or implementation of new computer system to increase efficiencies. Many times, organizations experience incremental change and its leaders do not recognize the change as such.
Remedial Versus Developmental Change
Change can be intended to remedy current situations, for example, to improve the poor performance of a product or the entire organization, reduce burnout in the workplace, help the organization to become much more proactive and less reactive, or address large budget deficits. Remedial projects often seem more focused and urgent because they are addressing a current, major problem. It is often easier to determine the success of these projects because the problem is solved or not.
Change can also be developmental – to make a successful situation even more successful, for example, expand the amount of customers served, or duplicate successful products or services.
Developmental projects can seem more general and vague than remedial, depending on how specific goals are and how important it is for members of the organization to achieve those goals.
Some people might have different perceptions of what is a remedial change versus a developmental change. They might see that if developmental changes are not made soon, there will be need for remedial changes. Also, organizations may recognize current remedial issues and then establish a
Adapted from “Field Guide to Consulting and Organizational Development” – to obtain the entire book, select “Publications” at http://www.authenticityconsulting.com
Copyright; Authenticity Consulting, LLC 175 developmental vision to address the issues. In those situations, projects are still remedial because they were conducted primarily to address current issues.
Unplanned Versus Planned Change
Unplanned change usually occurs because of a major, sudden surprise to the organization, which causes its members to respond in a highly reactive and disorganized fashion. Unplanned change might occur when the Chief Executive Officer suddenly leaves the organization, significant public relations problems occur, poor product performance quickly results in loss of customers, or other disruptive situations arise.
Planned change occurs when leaders in the organization recognize the need for a major change and proactively organize a plan to accomplish the change. Planned change occurs with successful implementation of a Strategic Plan, plan for reorganization, or other implementation of a change of this magnitude.
Note that planned change, even though based on a proactive and well-done plan, often does not occur in a highly organized fashion. Instead, planned change tends to occur in more of a chaotic and disruptive fashion than expected by participants.
The levels of organizational change
Perhaps the most difficult decision to make is at what "level" to start. There are four levels of organizational change:
shaping and anticipating the future (level 1)
defining what business(es) to be in and their "core competencies” (level 2)
reengineering processes (level 3)
incrementally improving processes (level 4)
First let's describe these levels, and then under what circumstances a business should use them.
Level 1- shaping and anticipating the future
At this level, organizations start out with few assumptions about the business itself, what it is "good" at, and what the future will be like.
Management generates alternate "scenarios" of the future, defines opportunities based on these possible futures, assesses its strengths and weaknesses in these scenarios changes its mission, measurement system etc. More information on this is in the next article, "Moving from the Future to your Strategy."
Level 2 - defining what business(es) to be in and their "Core Competencies
Many attempts at strategic planning start at this level, either assuming that 1) the future will be like the past or at least predictable; 2) the future is embodied in the CEO's "vision for the future"; or 3) management doesn't know where else to start; 4) management is too afraid to start at level 1 because of the changes needed to really meet future requirements; or 5) the only mandate they have is to refine what mission already exists.
After a mission has been defined and a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) analysis is completed, an organization can then define its measures, goals, strategies, etc. More information on this is in the next article, "Moving from the Future to your Strategy."
Level 3 - Reengineering (Structurally Changing) Your Processes
Either as an aftermath or consequence of level one or two work or as an independent action, level three work focuses on fundamentally changing how work is accomplished. Rather than focus on modest improvements, reengineering focuses on making major structural changes to everyday with the goal of substantially improving productivity, efficiency, quality or customer satisfaction. To read more about level 3 organizational changes, please see "A Tale of Three Villages."
Level 4 - Incrementally Changing your Processes
Level 4 organizational changes are focusing in making many small changes to existing work processes. Oftentimes organizations put in considerable effort into getting every employee focused on making these small changes, often with considerable effect. Unfortunately, making improvements on how a buggy whip for horse-drawn carriages is made will rarely come up with the idea that buggy whips are no longer necessary because cars have been invented. To read more about level 4 organizational changes and how it compares to level 3, please see "A Tale of Three Villages."
One organization we consulted with has had a more positive experience with the incremental approach. We trained an internal facilitator, helped them deliver training in a just-in-time fashion, and had them focus on specific technical problems. The teams management formed reduced initial quality defects by 48%.
The disadvantages of such an incremental approach include avoiding structural, system-wide problems, and assumes existing processes need modest improvement. In addition, using incremental approaches can be frustrating to employees and management if (pick a buzzword) does not catch on in the organization. As a result of these disadvantages, many organizations experience a high risk of failure in the long run.
http://www.organizedchange.com/decide.htm
Business process reengineering (BPR) is, in computer science and management, an approach aiming at improvements by means of elevating efficiency and effectiveness of the business process that exist within and across organizations. The key to BPR is for organizations to look at their business processes from a "clean slate" perspective and determine how they can best construct these processes to improve how they conduct business.
Business process reengineering is also known as BPR, Business Process Redesign, Business Transformation, or Business Process Change Management. Reengineering is a fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of business processes to achieve dramatic improvements in cost, quality, speed, and service. BPR combines a strategy of promoting business innovation with a strategy of making major improvements to business processes so that a company can become a much stronger and more successful competitor in the marketplace.
The main proponents of reengineering were Michael Hammer and James A. Champy. In a series of books including Reengineering the Corporation, Reengineering Management, and The Agenda, they argue that far too much time is wasted passing-on tasks from one department to another. They claim that it is far more efficient to appoint a team who are responsible for all the tasks in the process. In The Agenda they extend the argument to include suppliers, distributors, and other business partners.
Re-engineering is the basis for many recent developments in management. The cross-functional team, for example, has become popular because of the desire to re-engineer separate functional tasks into complete cross-functional processes. Also, many recent management information systems developments aim to integrate a wide number of business functions. Enterprise resource planning, supply chain management, knowledge management systems, groupware and collaborative systems, Human Resource Management Systems and customer relationship management systems all owe a debt to re-engineering theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_process_reengineering
Business process reengineering (often referred to by the acronym BPR) is the main way in which organizations become more efficient and modernize. Business process reengineering transforms an organization in ways that directly affect performance.
The impact of BPR on organizational performance
The two cornerstones of any organization are the people and the processes. If individuals are motivated and working hard, yet the business processes are cumbersome and non-essential activities remain, organizational performance will be poor. Business Process Reengineering is the key to transforming how people work. What appear to be minor changes in processes can have dramatic effects on cash flow, service delivery and customer satisfaction. Even the act of documenting business processes alone will typically improve organizational efficiency by 10%.
How to implement a BPR project
The best way to map and improve the organization's procedures is to take a top down approach, and not undertake a project in isolation. That means:
• Starting with mission statements that define the purpose of the organization and describe what sets it apart from others in its sector or industry.
• Producing vision statements which define where the organization is going, to provide a clear picture of the desired future position.
• Build these into a clear business strategy thereby deriving the project objectives.
• Defining behaviours that will enable the organization to achieve its' aims.
• Producing key performance measures to track progress.
• Relating efficiency improvements to the culture of the organization
• Identifying initiatives that will improve performance.
Once these building blocks in place, the BPR exercise can begin.
Tools to support BPR
When a BPR project is undertaken across the organization, it can require managing a massive amount of information about the processes, data and systems. If you don't have an excellent tool to support BPR, the management of this information can become an impossible task. The use of a good BPR/documentation tool is vital in any BPR project.
The types of attributes you should look for in BPR software are:
• Graphical interface for fast documentation
• "Object oriented" technology, so that changes to data (eg: job titles) only need to be made in one place, and the change automatically appears throughout all the organization's procedures and documentation.
• Drag and drop facility so you can easily relate organizational and data objects to each step in the process
• Customizable meta data fields, so that you can include information relating to your industry, business sector or organization in your documentation
• Analysis, such as swim-lanes to show visually how responsibilities in a process are transferred between different roles, or where data items or computer applications are used.
• Support for Value Stream mapping.
• CRUD or RACI reports, to provide evidence for process improvement.
• The ability to assess the processes against agreed international standards
• Simulation software to support 'what-if' analyses during the design phase of the project to develop LEAN processes
• The production of word documents or web site versions of the procedures at the touch of a single button, so that the information can be easily maintained and updated.
The software we use by choice is Protos, a very comprehensive Dutch system that has been translated into English. Protos meets all the above requirements, and many more, and is better than any system originated in English that we have seen.
Conclusion
To be successful, business process reengineering projects need to be top down, taking in the complete organization, and the full end to end processes. It needs to be supported by tools that make processes easy to track and analyze.
http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/business-process-reengineering.html
0 comments:
Post a Comment