management

Work Study

New developments in re-engineering organizations

Stephen Campbell Brian H. Kleiner

Article information:

To cite this document: Stephen Campbell Brian H. Kleiner, (1997),"New developments in re-engineering organizations", Work Study, Vol. 46 Iss 3 pp. 99 - 103 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00438029710162953

Downloaded on: 27 August 2015, At: 00:56 (PT) References: this document contains references to 8 other documents. To copy this document: [email protected] The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 651 times since 2006*

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:414810 []

For Authors

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Downloaded by VICTORIA UNIVERSITY (Australia) At 00:56 27 August 2015 (PT)

New developments in re-engineering organizations

Stephen Campbell and Brian H. Kleiner

The authors

Stephen Campbell and Brian H. Kleiner are with the Department of Management in the School of Business Administration and Economics at California State University, Northridge, California, USA.

Abstract

Business process re-engineering was first popularized by Michael Hammer and James Champy, with their book, Reengineering the Corporation. The book advocated throwing away current business methods, models, proce- dures and processes and replacing them with newly re- engineered business processes. This and subsequent “re- engineering” methodologies have placed the primary focus on the business process, and put little, if any, empha- sis on human factors. Suggests that many re-engineering projects fail because of this obvious neglect of human behavioural factors and identifies some proven manage- ment techniques which should be used in conjunction with any re-engineering methodology to ensure successful transformation of the business, and the people within the organization.

Business process re-engineering: a historical perspective

Business process re-engineering (BPR) advo- cates radical change to the ways in which business is currently conducted in order to create tremendous performance and econom- ic improvement. BPR was made popular by Michael Hammer and James Champy with their book, Reengineering the Corporation[1], and their management theories have been referenced as the model for “business revolu- tion”. Although BPR has gained tremendous popularity in business management as an innovative approach, many of its premisses are similar to previous management theories that have failed. Specifically, BPR suggests that it is “the process” and not “the people” that will make businesses successful. Howev- er, there is a contrary view: that proven suc- cess of any business is getting people to per- form efficiently together. The true benefit to BPR if implemented successfully will be in the human element, or the people, and not solely processes.

Is BPR an innovative management strategy, or is it simply an extension of the work of earlier management scientists? Frederick Taylor, in the 1880s, suggested that manage- ment use process engineering methods to discover the most efficient methods for per- forming work. Taylor, an engineer, suggested that these processes be continually improved to increase the productivity of workers. Taylor’s work with business process led to dramatic increases in the productivity of workers by focusing on efficiency. If there were shortcomings of the work done by Taylor and other management scientists that fol- lowed, it was that their methods, like BPR methods, focused too much on the theoretical process of work in an organization. Very little attention was given to the human element of the business process. The human factor plays a critical role in the long-term success and productivity of any business organization. It was not until the works of Marry Follett (1868-1933), Elton Mayo (1880-1949), Fritz J. Roethlisberger (1898-?), and Chester Barnard (1886-1961) that management scientists realized that the true success of an organization depends fundamentally on the human resource[2].

© Stephen Campbell and Brian H. Kleiner, 1997.

Work Study Volume 46 · Number 3 · 1997 · pp. 99–103 MCB University Press · ISSN 0043-8022

99

Downloaded by VICTORIA UNIVERSITY (Australia) At 00:56 27 August 2015 (PT)

New developments in re-engineering organizations Stephen Campbell and Brian H. Kleiner

BPR may seem to be a new methodology for change in a world where fast change is a requirement to maintain global competitive- ness. But it is the human element of any change that will act as a catalyst to promote successful and sustained performance improvements in the long term.

Changing cultures

Culture in an organization is a self-reinforcing set of beliefs, attitudes and behaviours. Cul- ture is one of the most resistant elements of organizational behaviour, and is extremely difficult to change. BPR must consider cur- rent culture in order to change these beliefs, attitudes and behaviours effectively. Messages conveyed from management in an organiza- tion continually enforce current culture. Management reward systems, stories of com- pany origin and early successes of founders, physical symbols and company icons con- stantly enforce the message of the current culture. These messages provide people in the organization with a guideline to predict the outcome of acceptable behaviour patterns. People quickly determine what is “good and bad behaviour”, and “if that happens, this will be the result”[3]. Organizational culture influences managerial behaviour, which directly influences company plans, policies and organizational image.

‘...Culture will not change with a new process, new attitude, or new slogan, because the underlying reward systems and messages of current culture will prevail...’

Culture is shaped and transformed by consis- tent patterns of management action. Thus, reshaping of culture cannot be changed in the short term; it must be continually reinforced by long-term consistent action. Culture will not change with a new process, new attitude, or new slogan, because the underlying reward systems and messages of current culture will prevail. Spontaneous, futile attempts to change culture will undoubtedly fail unless the old values, beliefs and rewards are no longer being encouraged, enforced and rewarded. BPR suggests radical change, and radical rewards, but recent studies show a

Work Study Volume 46 · Number 3 · 1997 · 99–103

more effective approach may be found in developing a well thought out, sound manage- ment plan for gradual change. This plan for gradual change should begin with manage- ment examining its current cultural reward system, beliefs and practices. Most important would be an examination of cultural messages being sent from management pertaining to business priorities and values. Management training, performance evaluation, and com- pensation packages should be investigated for conflicting messages where old cultural values are at odds with new cultural initiatives. Implementing BPR successfully is dependent on how thoroughly management conveys the new cultural messages to the organization. If the new cultural messages fit the new business processes, the human element will adjust to the rewards, and a true business transforma- tion will occur.

Performance in a stressful environment

Managing performance of a re-engineered organization will play an important role for two main reasons. First, the new value sys- tems and the new roles of people will translate into new skills and changed accountabilities. A new system to measure employee contribu- tion can be used as a driver to motivate employees and encourage high levels of per- formance from employees. Second, in a re- engineered organization there will not be the same typical boss and subordinate relation- ship, but the employee will be a member of teams or workgroups made up of peers from inside (and occasionally outside) the firm[3].

In designing a new system to measure all aspects of employee performance, manage- ment must be aware of the limitations of human performance. Humans react to changes in organization structure with high levels of stress. The fear of personal loss, uncertainty and loss of control are the specific factors that contribute to these stresses. Because BPR will cause dramatic changes to organizational structure, the human reaction towards these changes must be carefully planned and monitored. This is not to say that all stresses should be removed from the work- place during BPR. In fact, research has shown that humans do not perform optimally well when there are low levels of stress[3]. The research has shown that as stress increases, performance increases, only up to a certain point where performance will then drop off

100

Downloaded by VICTORIA UNIVERSITY (Australia) At 00:56 27 August 2015 (PT)

New developments in re-engineering organizations

Stephen Campbell and Brian H. Kleiner

dramatically. This drop off point is different for every individual. The stress/performance curve reaches the drop off point earlier for complex tasks such as problem solving and decision making where middle management would most likely be affected. Management must be sensitive to the range in stress/perfor- mance for each job classification and individ- ual, so that performance of and all levels of employees can be maximized without unnec- essary levels of job stress during BPR. BPR proponents suggest radical or dramatic change to organizations, people and business processes. Contrary to this belief, research has shown that people react much more positively to change that is incremental. Incre- mental change helps reduce stress during BPR and will help to ensure continued orga- nizational performance. Incremental change is more effective, but it is much more difficult to plan and implement because management must work harder to manage the human aspects of change by removing the uncertainty of change, the fear of personal loss and the feelings of loss of control. Incremental change requires careful design, and consistent imple- mentation throughout the various phases of change. Management’s announcement about change should be clear (in terms of vision) and incremental changes must be consistent with this overall vision. Management should share its confidence that the organization will achieve success in the re-engineering activi- ties, and management should be clear in ensuring that the people in the organizations will have their interests protected.

Learning organizations

The goal of BPR is change. BPR purists advocate dramatic change to organizations and process. However, many organizations which have implemented BPR find that change is constant, and that the people in the organizations must learn to adapt quickly to all change. The key for these organizations is to learn from all aspects of implementing change, even mistakes along the way, and implement action quickly to resolve these problems. Firms which recognize this and implement these techniques of continuous learning are called learning organizations[4]. A learning organization extends to all levels of an organization, striving to keep up with customer needs. Keeping up with new cus- tomer needs means that a fundamental

Work Study Volume 46 · Number 3 · 1997 · 99–103

change must take place through all people within the organization, even people who have no impact on customers and/or products. A learning organization is more than a training programme; it is the establishment of a learn- ing process which is a collective state of mind for all people. It is a dedication of people, time, talent and money for continuous learn- ing and new knowledge transformed into new behaviour and action.

When creating a learning organization programme, there are primarily two cate- gories which must be considered. The first is awareness-based training and the second is skills-based training.

Awareness-based training

Awareness training attempts to reinforce the vision and goals of the organization, and to uncover issues, prejudices and stereotypes which may influence effective BPR. It should assess attitudes and values, correct myths and stereotypes and foster individual and group sharing[5].

Skills-based training

Skills-based training aims at providing work- ers with a set of skills which will enable them to address the changes and diversity of the workplace. It should reinforce existing skills and attempt to develop methodologies for building long-range organizational skills and effectively helping an organization increase its competitive edge.

Awareness-based and skills-based training may be separate training initiatives, but they complement each other and tend to reinforce the goals of the firm, resulting in a synergistic learning organization training programme.

Motivation

In order for BPR to succeed, staff and man- agement must be motivated to achieve the vision and goals of BPR. When motivating the staff on a BPR project, one must not forget some of the classic management theories such as reinforcement theory, learning theory and expectancy theory. Application of these man- agement theories will provide practical and proven techniques for motivating employees; they are equally applicable and effective for BPR. A quick review of these management theories will be helpful prior to discussing their effect on BPR[3].

101

Downloaded by VICTORIA UNIVERSITY (Australia) At 00:56 27 August 2015 (PT)

New developments in re-engineering organizations Stephen Campbell and Brian H. Kleiner

Reinforcement theory

Reinforcement theory’s central tenets are:

· behaviour which is rewarded will be

repeated;

· behaviour which is rewarded only intermit-

tently will tend to persist longer than behav-

iour which is rewarded regularly;

· behaviour which is ignored will tend not to

persist;

· behaviour which is punished will result in

unpredictable behaviour. This is because punishment results in behaviour which seeks to avoid the punishment.

Social learning theory

Social learning theory shows that people tend to use cognitive cause and effect models. This theory establishes that individuals learn by hearing about, or by observing what has happened to, other people.

Expectancy theory

Expectancy theory states that behaviour depends on expectations about its conse- quences. It is combination of the desirability and the perceived likelihood of occurring which will determine behaviour. People will not be motivated to work hard if the probabili- ty of achieving the rewards are perceived to be low.

...‘If employees do not believe that management itself can achieve the rewards of BPR, expectancy theory will predict that employees will not be motivated to achieve these goals...’

These theories are very important to consider when implementing BPR. How often do organizations pay attention to, and reward, behaviours that they do not want, and ignore and even punish the types of behaviour that are vital to growth and the future of the orga- nization? Management must be confident and believe that the probability of achieving the desired goals of BPR is extremely high. If employees do not believe that management itself can achieve the rewards of BPR, expectancy theory will predict that employees will not be motivated to achieve these goals. Management must be aware that the old ways of doing things must never be allowed. Research in reinforcement theory shows that

Work Study Volume 46 · Number 3 · 1997 · 99–103

even if old ways of doing things are only occa- sionally reinforced, the effect on that type of behaviour will be very powerful, making it almost impossible to change the unwanted behaviour[3]. On the other hand, all new, desired behaviours should be reinforced constantly and visibly. Rewards should be designed into new processes of BPR so that employees will find that they can be carried out easily. If this reward system is effectively integrated into the new processes of BPR, these new BPR processes will quickly catch on and they will be self-reinforcing.

Commitment and leadership

Before any BPR project can be implemented successfully, there must be a commitment to the project by the management of the organi- zation, and strong leadership must be provid- ed. A manager can be identified as one who is responsible for the control of tasks and the people who have been made responsible for those tasks. Managers have the power in organizations to execute a known set of responsibilities, policies and procedures. Management can either execute these func- tions or decide not to execute them. This style of management is known in many companies as “managing by the book”[5]. In all organi- zations, this same involvement can produce leaders, and they can be identified easily. Leaders use the same power given to them to execute a vision which will permit an organi- zation to meet its goals. Leaders are managers who do what is required to grow and change the way things are accomplished. Others, seeing their style and their contribution, will follow. Good leaders respect the input and ideas of all people in the organization. They will make temporary sacrifices for long-term gains, and they expect their people to develop and learn to do the same. Managers, not leaders, on the other hand, have a tendency to avoid a leadership role. They become uncom- fortable with questions with no easy answers. They may ignore innovative ideas and tend to stick with traditional methods. For successful BPR, leaders must be identified and man- agers must be leaders, people of vision, of commitment and accept the responsibility to lead, and anticipate the future. Leaders get personally involved with making things happen. Commitment from a leader is action oriented, and they expect others to be also by making them accountable for results. If

102

Downloaded by VICTORIA UNIVERSITY (Australia) At 00:56 27 August 2015 (PT)

New developments in re-engineering organizations

Stephen Campbell and Brian H. Kleiner

commitment does not exist, then BPR should stop and management should consider how commitment can be obtained. BPR should not proceed until the required level of com- mitment exists. If there is not a leadership commitment, then expectations of employees will rise along with the initial announcement for change, then quickly fall with distrust knowing that the absence of follow-through exists by observing the behaviour of manage- ment.

The human element

People should be the focus for any successful business change. BPR is not a recipe for successful business transformation if it con- centrates on only computer technology and process redesign. In fact, many BPR projects have failed because they did not recognize the importance of the human element in imple- menting BPR. Re-engineering business processes to become more efficient and cost effective to compete in today’s global market- place is important for the survival of most companies today. But understanding the people in organizations, the current company culture, motivation, leadership and past performance is essential to recognize, under- stand and integrate into the vision and imple- mentation of BPR. If the human element is given equal or greater emphasis in BPR, the

Work Study Volume 46 · Number 3 · 1997 · 99–103

odds of successful business transformation increase substantially.

References

1. 1  Hammer, M. and Champy, J., Re-engineering the Corporation, Harper Business, 1993.

2. 2  Whiting, J.T., “Reengineering the corporation: a historical perspective and critique”, Industrial Man- agement, Vol. 36 No. 6, November/December 1994, pp. 14-16.

3. 3  Rause, A. and Watson, D., “Some classic theories of organisations-change, and their implications for business process innovation and reengineering”, Computer Science and Technology, Vol. 54, pp. 513-23.

4. 4  Young, D.W., Pieters, G.R. and Cherin, D.A., “Building centres for learning”, Human Resources Professional, Vol. 7, July/August 1994, pp. 10-14.

5. 5  Carnevale, A.P. and Stone, S.C., “Diversity: beyond the golden rule”, Training & Development, Vol. 48 No. 10, October 1994, pp. 22-39.

Further reading

Davenport, T.H., “Will participative makeovers of business processes succeed where reengineering failed?”, Planning Review, January/February 1995, pp. 24-9.

Wellins, R.S. and Murphy, J.S., “Reengineering – plug into the human factor”, Training & Development, Vol. 49 No. 1, January 1995, pp. 33-47.

Willmott, H., “Business process reengineering and human- resource management”, Personnel Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 34-46.

103

Downloaded by VICTORIA UNIVERSITY (Australia) At 00:56 27 August 2015 (PT)

This article has been cited by:

1. Rob Dekkers. 2008. Adapting organizations: the instance of business process re-engineering. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 25, 45-66. [CrossRef]

2. Andrew Greasley. 2003. Using business‐process simulation within a business‐process reengineering approach. Business Process Management Journal 9:4, 408-420. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

3. Elly Philpott, John Beaumont-KerridgeOvercoming Reticence to Aid Knowledge Creation Between Universities and Business 355-368. [CrossRef]

Downloaded by VICTORIA UNIVERSITY (Australia) At 00:56 27 August 2015 (PT)