2 Discussion of BPR Theory - certago.com Literature Review.pdfThis chapter aims to discuss the fundamental theory behind Business Process Reengineering and ... the apparent failure

Strathclyde Business School BPR: The Case of Polaroid (UK) Ltd

2 Discussion of BPR Theory

“Whoever is winning at the moment, will always seem to be invincible”

George Orwell.

2.1 Introduction

Organisations who have had a history of prosperous periods of growth and thriving

profits tend to become victims of their own success. Complacency breeds inflexibility

characterised by a lack of aspiration to enforce proactive change in view of changing

market conditions and early signs of impending decline. Recent years have witnessed the

troubles of several ‘blue-chip’ companies. Organisations who previously perceived

themselves to be infallible have subsequently fallen foul of the capricious nature of

competition. Companies such as IBM, Xerox and Ford have been forced into radical

change and restructuring in order to survive in an increasingly competitive market place

[10] ,[11].

Distinctive competencies have been eroded through time and competition. Pascale

discovered that five years on from Peters and Waterman’s study of so called “excellent”

US companies, more than 60% had failed to meet the original criteria specified in 1982

[12]. The fact that many companies have seen themselves in such a predicament means

that they will readily leap through any window of opportunity. A window that offers a

glimmer of hope in the shape of increased productivity and profits and improved

competitive advantage. Michael Hammer and James Champy at the beginning of the

1990s proclaimed that Business Process Reengineering (BPR) could deliver such a

desire. Unlike Total Quality Management (TQM) which focuses on long term objectives,

the proponents of BPR expound the possibility of substantial increases in efficiency and

productivity in a relatively short amount of time.

© Certago Limited Damian Guthrie Page 1 of 35


This chapter aims to discuss the fundamental theory behind Business Process

Reengineering and associated issues such as strategy, culture, the management of change,

and information technology. A prescription of successful factors which aims to alleviate

prospective risks associated with the planning and implementation of BPR projects will

be drawn up by critically assessing relevant literature in the field of study.

The approach adopted throughout this chapter to the various BPR aspects is deliberately

abstract in an effort to draw attention to, and summarise, the multitude of relevant points

and arguments. What follows is by no means a comprehensive or exhaustive account of

specific issues, but is merely designed to highlight the complexities and problems

associated with implementing a BPR programme.

2.2 Business Process Reengineering Defined

There is some quandary as to the question of originality concerning BPR [13]. Sceptics

claim that BPR is nothing new and is simply a hodgepodge of ideas and techniques

developed over the last few decades. It is often either wrongly mistaken as a modified

version of TQM, or is inaccurately described as business transformation, process

redesign, process innovation or some other loosely held term (It is not the objective of

this paper to discuss in detail the disparities between various approaches, but a diagram

summarising some contrasts is provided in the Appendix). However, Business Process

Reengineering has certain common underlying traits with these latter concepts.

Essentially, they all focus on business processes with a view to obtaining radical

performance improvement. Although there are certain concepts in the approach that are

not entirely new, when combined, they do represent an “amalgam of ideas fundamentally

different to any other change initiative” [14]. To avoid getting too pedantic on

terminology, the theory in this section will be based on the issue of reegineering as first

conceptualised by Michael Hammer and James Champy. Additional comments will also

consider the significant contribution of Davenport and Short to the theory. The terms

reengineering and BPR will be used interchangeably.



2.2.1 A Focus on Processes

BPR focuses on the outcome of activities derived from the expectations and requirements

of either the internal or external customer. It aims to achieve dramatic reductions in cost,

improvements in quality and reductions in product cycle time. The basic premise behind

reengineering is the notion of starting from the very beginning, where old practices are

swept aside in favour of new creative and innovative processes. Whereas process

redesign addresses methods for making modifications to existing processes in order to

obtain improvements in performance, BPR seeks to design entirely new processes and

thus radically make changes in how business is conducted.

Indeed, many observers and authors purport that the reason so many statistics proclaim

the apparent failure of BPR is because they are simply process improvement programmes

paraded under the banner of BPR. The incremental improvements yielded from such

programmes have been cited as evidence against the claims of quantum leaps in

performance from BPR. Coulson-Thomas sheds some light on the issue:

"What is referred to as BPR turns out to be process improvement or simplification

and not process re-engineering. Such initiatives may result in worthwhile

increases in performance but they are unlikely to produce the radical

transformation promised by advocates of re-engineering" [15].

Thus, many so-called BPR programmes turn out to be nothing more than an exercise of

improving existing standard activities. So what does BPR exactly entail ?

BPR places great emphasis on process outcomes as opposed to individual tasks and on

eliminating non-value added activities. Porter advocates that organisations can gain a

competitive advantage through enacting value-creating activities at a lower cost than

their competitors or performing in such a way that it leads to product differentiation [16].

With the emphasis firmly in addressing customer needs, a results oriented view should be

adopted as opposed to a task oriented one. Work should be organised around outcomes -



not around individual tasks. This means that several jobs are combined into one,

resulting in the elimination of the need for transitional outcomes, such as non-essential

checks and controls.

Accordingly, organisations can stream-line their workforce to a more efficient level

culminating in added benefit and value to the customer using such tools as value chain

analysis [17] and functional activity analysis. Value is created whenever the same

outputs are made with fewer inputs or more outputs are obtained with the same inputs.

Benchmarking proactively directs organisational efforts to become the best of the best by

allowing the company to identify opportunities for improvement, thus supporting the

value creation process. Benchmarking tools can assist the company by providing a

comparative and visual account of 'best in practice' processes inherent in other

organisations and how to integrate them into the company. It is not about cloning the

success of other organisations, but rather it is the process of building on the success of

others and tailoring these characteristics to an organisational context such that customer

demands are met more efficiently.

Since customers exist at many levels within and outside the organisation, there is

therefore an impending need to investigate the interdependent and cross-functional

business processes that are executed within and across the organisation. Hall et al note

that realising the breadth and depth of processes is crucial to the success of BPR

implementation [18]. Indeed, they attribute an additional reason for BPR failing to live up

expectations to the fact that many redesign projects narrowly target processes which fail

to impact on bottom-line results.

Organisations often fail to look at the wider implications for the business unit as a whole.

As Edwards and Peppard aptly point out:

"Many redesign initiatives take place within a single functional area, and while

they may exhibit significant performance improvement, they contribute little to



the performance of the organisation as a whole. The improvement is measured

relative to the process or function of which it is part" [19].

They conclude that implementing BPR on such a partial style will inadvertently

culminate in the BPR initiative being misaligned with the organisations strategy. Hendry

proposes that this reengineering "on a piecemeal basis", where some companies choose

to concentrate their efforts on "processes in which there seems to be the greatest scope

for improvement" is symptomatic of tough market conditions and the recession which

have served to impinge on corporate resources [20].

So, the amenability for a business outcome does not generally reside with an individual

or an explicit functional area. The business must be viewed as a coterie of processes that

produce outputs of value to a customer, whether they be internal or external. It is thus

vitally important that the organisation identifies the business it is in and the goals it aims

to achieve in order to meet customer demands accurately. By analysing those processes

that add value, a suitable resource for IT can be identified to succor them. Consequently,

new processes are designed radically in a short period of time, with support from a

corresponding organisational infrastructure. Communication technologies facilitate

hybrid centralised/decentralised operations such that information is channeled throughout

the organisation efficiently.

However, BPR is a comprehensive concept and encapsulates more than just process

redesign. The new processes must be coordinated in accordance with an organisations

strategic outlook. They must embody and promote corporate objectives which directly

involves the convergence of consumer demands and tastes. As part of a five step plan in

redesigning business processes, Davenport and Short advocate that the first step should

be to develop a business vision which incorporates process objectives and targets [21].

They purport that the most successful redesign examples had developed a strategic

alignment with the process redesign activities.



2.2.2 Summary

This section addressed the main focus of BPR - that of processes. The following factors

have emerged as issues of importance when redesigning processes:

Discontinuous thinking. Objective is to eliminate non-value added

activities by completely re-thinking and streamlining key business

processes;

Organise around outcomes. Several jobs are combined into one;

Outlined processes for redesign should be addressed by a cross-

functional team derived from people with specific hands-on experience

of the relevant inherent activities;

Customer focus. Proccesses should be analysed to determine their

interrelationship with the customer;

Inter-organisational thinking. The process parameters should be

extended to include those involved in activities outside the company,

thus improving the coordination of related activities;

Senior executives must be involved to provide expertise in overseeing

processes and formulating strategic objectives;

Benchmarking is utilised as a basis for learning and stimulating

change;

Goals and targets for improvement should be dramatic and be

communicated in a clear vision;

IT is used where appropriate to improve efficiency.

The following section now looks at the strategic implications of BPR.

2.3 Strategic Implications of BPR

Most companies now carry a mission statement prominently displayed on their annual

report promulgating the organisation’s vision of the future. Such mission statements are

used as marketing slogans and to also capture employee’s commitment and enthuasiasm.



Coulson-Thomas highlights the value of a company’s vision as consisting of both an

internal and an external component [22]. Internally, it serves to motivate staff in achieving

the organisation’s goals, and externally, by differentiating the company from it’s

competitors. He goes on to say that both these components act together to provide the

organisation with a collective sense of direction.

The corporate vision encapsulates the very essence of an organisation's purposeful

existence, which is articulated by the mission statement. As such, the mission statement

and strategy are intertwined, each complimenting the other. In fact this relationship can

influence the organisation to such an extent as to result in bottom-line and financial

improvements in performance [23]. Reengineering can reinforce this relationship between

strategy and vision by delivering ambitious gains in performance. Hammer contends that

reengineering can facilitate and foster innovative strategies by improving the

organisation’s operating capabilities. This enables the company to realise strategic

objectives that would have been previously otherwise unachievable and also opens up

new strategic opportunities [24]. This contention will be further explored in the following

sub-sections. The first sub-section defines strategy followed by a section addressing the

contrasting approaches to the concept. This section is concluded by underlining the

importance of communicating the corporate strategy.

2.3.1 What is Strategy?

Strategy is concerned with making choices to meet objectives in the light of the evolving

external environment and the company’s available resources. Formal strategic planning

necessitates a vision and objectives and then a high-level course of action to achieve

these objectives. This strategic vision has a been highlighted by many authors as a

crucial factor for determining the success of corporate redesign projects [25].

However, a clear strategy is insufficient on its own. In order to implement a new

strategy, it often has to be precipitated by a subsequent change an organisation’s



structure. The 'new' structure must support business objectives by being aligned with the

corporate strategy. Miles et al highlight the fact that the inherent difficulties associated

with structural change can be detrimental to the overall strategic change. Indeed, they

attribute the issue of culture as a major source of this problem by commenting that

“managers often avoid or modify important structural demands because the required

changes conflict with their own deeply held attitudes and values” [26].

2.3.2 Approaches to Business Strategy

Like most intangible subjects, there are many opposing views on the structure of strategy.

These views can be generally separated in to four main areas, as depicted in Figure 1

below. The four approaches are differentiated by two main issues: the end-result of the

strategy itself and the processes by which it is executed [27]. The Systemic and Processual

approaches have a multitude of objectives consequental of their action, whereas Classical

and Evolutionary approaches envisage profit maximisation as the ultimate goal. For

brevity and relavancy, only the Classical, Processual and Evolutionary approaches shall

be discussed. For a more detailed description on all four of the aproaches, please refer to

Whittington (1993).



Figure 1: Generic Perspectives on Strategy

Pluralistic

Emergent

OUTCOMES

Profit-Maximising

PROCESSES

Deliberate

PROCESSUAL

EVOLUTIONARYCLASSICAL

SYSTEMIC

Influential writers such as Ansoff [28] and Andrews [29] have been instrumental in forming

the main body of argument for the Classical movement. Porter has extended this early

work on strategic planning into his five forces framework. This concept focuses on a

company’s ability to develop products and then it’s prowess in being able to identify

markets for them to be sold. At the heart of this framework lies the notion of long term

planning to maximise future success. This premise implies therefore, that strategy is a

predetermined and willful course of action developed by organisations. It is a rational

process whereby the company can exercise a limited form of control in predicting it’s

own future and the direction it intends to take.

However, distinguished writers such as Mintzberg and McHugh proclaim that strategy is

not explicitly concocted at the outset, but instead emerges organically [30]. They regard

the long-term view with scepticism and instead place much more value on present



chances of survival. This emphasis is encapsulated by Quinn. He perceives that the

efficacy of strategies tend to emerge from a series of “strategic subsystems” which fuse

cohesively into the company’s overall corporate strategy [31]. Mintzberg continues that

"formulation and implementation merge into a process of learning through which

creative strategies evolve" [32]. The 'strategy as evolution' camp maintain this argument

on the premise that the ensuing external competitive climate is too subjective and

unpredictable and it therefore cannot be manipulated as easily as what the classical

school would have one believe. As such, the market wrestles the reins of power away

from the manager, placing him in a position of uncertainty and incapacity. They can only

meet this challenge by responding to the every-day issues thrown up by the environment

with ‘best-fit’ strategies.

The processual approach is very much a learning process, built upon and reinforced by

the manager’s experience and perceptual outlook of the organisational context. As such,

it recognises that management should act as “learning agents” by adopting a flexible and

amenable approach to the surrounding chaotic environment. De Geus purports that an

organisation's ability to learn faster than it's competitors may be the only element of

competitive advantage that is truly sustainable [33]. However, rather than mirroring one

particular school of strategic thought, organisational learning consists of elements

relevant to all of them.

This myriadic view of organisational learning presents the manager with a formidable

challenge in bridging the gap between strategy formulation and strategy implementation.

It clouds the organisation’s perspective of the competitive environment and thus poses as

a significant danger in it’s ability to focus on the surrounding important issues.

However, Edwards and Peppard claim that reengineering can successfully negotiate the

difference between strategy formulation and implementation. They claim that

reengineering “involves identifying and linking the strategy of the business with the

required organisational processes to ensure that this strategy is actually delivered” [34].

This is very much a top-driven approach in that reengineering forces the company to



address the direction of it’s current business processes by articulating the organisational

design necessary to deliver the formulated strategy. Since reengineering cuts right across

business functions within the organisation, it must be led by someone who has the

appropriate authority to oversee a process in its entirety.

However, it is possible for the actual redesign of processes to be enacted without any

direct involvement from senior management, depending on the scale and scope of the

programme [35]. Although the BPR initiative must be led from the top, it is important that

a bottom-up perspective is also adopted. It is the employees who have had an integral

part in redesigning the processes and it is they who must live with the new way of work.

Thus, top management should provide the direction, objectives and vision as to how the

new process will look, and lower levels should provide the necessary details as to how

this new way of work should be ordered and maintained [36].

However, some authors remain sceptical as to the exact relationship between BPR and

business strategy. In particular, Earl and Khan cast some doubt on the association

between emergent strategy characteristics [37], [38] and BPR. They propose that these

characteristics are more in line with continuous improvement as opposed to the one-shot

- quantum leap focus inherent in BPR. Additionally, Hamel and Prahalad attack BPR on

it’s apparent focus for short-term objectives. They purport that reengineering “has more

to do with shoring up today’s businesses than creating tomorrow’s industries” [39]

However, Hammer counters this argument by contending that:

“Re-engineering is the mechanism for creating strengths and operating processes

which can then be exploited in many ways, re-engineering can be used to provide

cost advantages or improve customer service, thereby defending an existing

market; it can enable entry into entirely new businesses either by turning internal

processes into revenue generating services or by identifying new applications for

the same skills” [40]



But, Hammer's contentions for BPR are somewhat simplified in this context. There is a

multiplicity of underlying factors which can influence a company's position within the

market and it would be rather naive to suggest that BPR can provide all the answers.

Lloyd offers some thought from a different perspective on the relationship between

business strategy and BPR:

“the success of a reengineering programme is not the efficiency of the redesigned

processes, but the contribution it makes to the achievement of the firms strategic

objectives” [41].

So, BPR supplements and promotes the efficacy of business strategy. It is essential that

BPR is aligned with corporate strategy because it has the leverage to alter both the

competitive and operational nature of the organisation [42].

2.3.3 The Importance of Communicating the Corporate Strategy

From their detailed research on French companies, Calori and Atamer highlight the

importance of communication “for the implementation of strategies and the emergence of

strategic actions” [43]. They stress that these companies have improved the channels of

communication by adopting consultative management practices, which are supported by

an organisational design that is conducive to employee participation and involvement.

Spiker and Lesser criticise senior strategists who "often fall into the trap of providing

information on a 'need-to-know' basis [44].

The implications of this is that information seeps down through informal channels and

can become misconstrued in the process. The end-result is inaccurate pieces of

information which serves to invoke fear and hostility toward any proposals of strategic

change.



In order to avert the aforementioned fear factor, any change initiative must be properly

managed. This is the topic of the next section.

2.4 The Management of Change

Change can be either advantageous or detrimental to organisations. In some cases,

organisations are forced to undergo a process of change whereas in other cases, change is

actively sought and welcomed. Organisational change can arise out of pressures created

by a host of external and internal factors, singularly or collectively. The characteristics

of external forces are most commonly manifested in areas such as technology,

sociological climate, economic environment and political changes. Leavitt identified

technology, people, task and administrative structures as being the most influential issues

in initiating internal change [45].

These internal and external forces often act in synchrony. But whether these forces are

external or internal, the symptoms of the change are often expressed in a universal

manner: resistance to change. People frequently resist change for a variety of reasons,

such as fear of the unknown, vested interests threatened or do not feel the need to change.

Spiker and Lesser purport that "any change, no matter how clearly beneficial to

employees and the organisation as a whole, will meet with and often be sabotaged by

resistance" [46]. They believe that this resistance is at the root for the failure of many

corporate change efforts. It thus remains evident that change must be successfully

managed if the organisation is to reap any benefits at all from reengineering. This section

addresses the important issue of cultural change in this management process and how to

change it. Consequently, the significance of resistance to cultural change and ways of

overcoming it will also be looked at.



2.4.1 Organisational Culture and Change

Most companies have a common underlying culture which permeates the entire

enterprise, with slight deviances among divisions where fundamental barriers sufficiently

prevail [47]. Culture is one of those intangible matters which is difficult to quantify and

analyse. The concept encapsulates the manner in which people perform work and the

way in which they are treated in the organisational context. Schein provides an

appropriate definition on the concept of organisational culture:

“By definition it consists of a large set of taken-for-granted implicit assumptions

that cover how group members view both their external relationships with their

various environments and their internal relationships with each other” [48]

The subjective characteristic of culture poses obvious difficulties for transforming

organizations, which are essentially establishments grounded in a history of past

experiences and group norms. Organisational culture is not only expressed through the

official channels of structure and systems, but it is also manifested through more

unofficial sources such as rituals, political behaviour and physical symbols [49]. It is the

culmination of the organisation’s past "accumulated experiences and of the lessons it has

learnt in seeking to survive and prosper" [50]. So the cultural characteristics of an

organisation are engrained in its historical background which is composed of the actions

and decisions of past leaders.

If culture is so difficult to measure, then how does one go about changing it? The terse

answer is with great difficulty! Williams et al propose that culture consists of three

levels:

• Observable level manifested by the behaviour of individuals;

• Reportable level characterised by the attitudes and values of members

• Unconscious level which is characterised by individual beliefs. [51].



They contend that individual beliefs form the basic grounding for organisational culture

since the behaviour, attitudes and values of organisational members are intrinsically

dependent upon it. Beliefs are thus seen as the crucial factor in facilitating cultural

change.

2.4.1.1 The importance of cultural change

Culture directs the capacity an organisation has in both devising and implementing a new

strategy [52]. Culture is self-reinforcing and thus any change, whatever the inherent

characteristics are, will involve a consequential degree of cultural change. Peters and

Waterman, highlight the importance of advocating cultural change to increase corporate

competitive performance [53]. Both writers have noted that excellent companies are

characterised by their “strong corporate cultures in which the values of service, quality

and innovation were all deeply embedded” [54]. They argue that the multi-faceted issue of

corporate culture is the cornerstone of successfully implementing any change program.

Peters stresses the importance of an organisation's ability to manage continuous change to

the point that it will cease to exist if it cannot adapt to its turbulent environment [55].

2.4.1.2 How to change organisational culture

Changing an organisation’s culture involves having a comprehensive awareness and

understanding of its surrounding parameters. However, perceptions concerning these

parameters are often polluted with bias because "the task of comprehending a particular

culture becomes more formidable the more one becomes acquainted with it: one's initial

model is little more than an amalgam of the observer's own prejudiced presuppositions."

[56]. This interpretative approach is succinctly highlighted by Hendry and Hope who

remark that a company's culture is bolstered by any significant past successes which in

turn act as a barrier to future change, thus culminating in the failure of the change

programme [57]. These prejudices must be overcome. There must be a process of

unlearning past experiences.



Since culture is founded and enforced by many factors such as leadership, structure, and

environment, this unlearning process must first address these factors [58]. Schein

advocates that the first step in changing culture is to prepare the organisation by

unfreezing existing attitudes and behaviours [59]. This process must include certain

mechanisms to promote cognitive redefinition as a means of cultivating new

suppositions. Existing beliefs and prejudices must be supplanted with those that are

conducive to realising corporate objectives. This process is administered through a

"refreezing" stage in which new cultural components fortify desired outcomes and

minimise problems and apprehensions [60]. Kennedy underlines the value of education

and training in this refreezing stage by quoting an executive in a re-engineering firm:

“...you have to change things at the emotional level. We should have spent more

time underpinning beliefs and harnessing the benefits of ownership and

partnership...Don’t tune into organisational logic, tune into behaviours” [61].

It is thus essential that top-level management ensure consistency and coherence in their

approach to avert jeopardising the successful outcome of this transition. The transition

will also likely be accompanied by a subsequent change in the organisational design in

alignment with the strategic direction.

Each of the above methods have their own distinct advantages and disadvantages. The

choice of method is therefore down to organisational context. Hendry and Hope

highlight a bottom-up approach to achieve culture transition, where staff form new

attitudes, shared assumptions and beliefs in the context of being placed in unfamiliar job

settings and relationships [62]. This process is first undertaken in discrete departments

before being integrated into the organisation as a whole.

Hendry and Hope also outline two top-down approaches which incorporate linking

programs with clear communication from the top. The first approach encourages staff to

acquire ownership of the programme through partcipation and involvement in key change



activities. Top level management offer facilitation and support to alleviate any inherent

fears toward the impending change [63].

The alternative top-level method is where the change programme is ‘sold’ to staff

through the medium of a corporate vision. This approach requires “charismatic

leadership, symbolic action and powerful advertising” to realise the desired ‘new’ culture

[64]. Senior executives must exert positive direction which is testament to their

commitment.

Indeed, it is not just top-level management's commitment that is fundamentally important

to the successful management of change. There is often less adherence at middle

management level which can very often act as a hindrance and slow down the momentum

of change.

However, an interesting survey on middle managers in privatised companies recently

conducted by Gemini Consulting throws new light on a possible reason for this hindrance

[65]. Alun Evans, vice president of Gemini remarked that the "reason middle

mangers...appeared to be obstacles to change is that they are not sufficiently involved in

the process to translate the vision into pragmatic decisions" [66]. The solution is thus to

involve middle managers in the change process. They have a vast knowledge base on

existing practices which may be untapped by senior executives and management

consultants. The result is "incremental change, not transformational."[67].

Since reengineering is change at its most radical, then it has to be conducted in an

environment which is conducive to open communication and which recognises the value

of group dynamics.

David Harvey, author of the British Intelligence report, “Reengineering: the Critical

Success Factors” believes that Hammer’s approach to BPR is fundamentally flawed

because it fails to recognise the human element of change. Indeed, the report purports

that companies must adopt an approach which heeds the “social, procedural, systems and



group dynamic dimensions of process reengineering”. Failure to do so otherwise

“jeopardises the outcome of the reegineering effort.” [68].

Accordingly, reengineering advocates an organisational structure that promotes

communication and motivates staff. A reengineered business dismantles 'command and

control' type structures and supplants them with a cross-functional multi-tasked

architecture. This creates a flexible and highly motivated workforce who are empowered

with higher degrees of responsibility and a propensity to make decisions at the point of

contact. Employee empowerment can significantly increase the performance of a

business, but there are many complex underlying problems associated with this dramatic

change in culture. An insight into these traits is provided next.

2.4.2 Empowerment Issues

Empowerment involves top-level management delegating power to lower levels of staff,

where staff are entrusted to take ownership of processes. This transition can benefit both

parties as staff’s jobs become enriched with new challenges and responsibilities and

manager’s can free their time to do more value-added tasks.

Accordingly, empowerment involves a shift in the political distribution of power within

an organisation. Thus to successfully implement the principles of empowerment requires

direction, delegation and commitment from top level management. It is this element of

sacrifice that represents the stumbling block to progress. Some executive leaders are

unwilling to let go of their power reins. For them empowerment poses a serious threat to

their political standing in the corporation. It is evident that there will be some friction as

power is eroded from one group and devolved to another. The fact that some managers

fear the onslaught of employee empowerment means that the principles may not be

executed consistently. Managers ultimately hold court and therefore any impending

program of empowerment must initially be sanctioned by them.



Another inherent problem associated with empowerment is that not every employee

relishes the prospect of increased degrees of responsibility. Stress comes hand-in-hand

with greater levels of power and so some employees will choose to avert the issue .

Additionally, employees may be sceptical of management motives. They may distrust

the intentions of devolved responsibility as simply an exploitation exercise. To alleviate

these fears management must be consistent in their approach.

However, empowerment is not a universal panacea for attaining rises in productivity.

Again, there is no magic formula for making it work. Empowerment must be

circumscribed for the particular organisation in question because it is fundamentally

grounded on cultural issues. The onus is therefore on top-level management to create a

culture conducive to employee participation. This requires formulating a framework for

recognising and rewarding employee innovation. Employees should have a clearly

defined mission statement and a complimentary set of intrinsic values to identify.

To facilitate continuous involvement, management must give their full commitment to

ensure that participation prevails. The organisational design and structure will be such

that employees will have easy access to relevant information and the opportunity to apply

this information productively. Although empowerment requires the abdication of

specific levels of management power, it is ultimately down to them to successfully drive

the program through in order to achieve the required increases in productivity.

Failure in this process could result in employee dissatisfaction and resistance. Resistance

to any impending change can become an insurmountable barrier if it is not tackled in the

appropriate manner. The next section describes some of the symptoms associated with

resistance to cultural change and ways of alleviating and overcoming the problem.

2.4.3 Resistance to Cultural Change and Ways of Dealing With It

Most change programmes are characterised by some level of resistance. Factors that

contribute to resistance range from conscious behaviour where there is “calculated



opposition to change” to the more sub-conscious level where some people develop

“mental blockages” which preclude change capacity [69]. Organisations by their very

nature are conservative [70]. Political infighting can impinge upon the change progress to

the extent of deliberate sabotage. Individuals with conflicting interests, each striving to

reach opposing goals can have disastrous consequences. Morris and Brandon stress that

"solving this problem is essential to successful reengineering. The results of negative

political action can destroy any reengineering effort." [71]. They propose that solving this

dichotomy can only be realised by top level management leveraging and directing

appropriate levels of control.

Management’s ability to identify the cause of resistance to previous change programmes

is important. Change agents can learn from these past experiences and act accordingly

when similar issues arise in preceding projects. Indeed, some authors purport that the

issues for resolving resistance rests with top-level management:

"In any redesign project, senior executives must overcome resistance and

convince employees of the need for change. Ignored or ill-handled, the politics of

redesign can doom an otherwise successful project" [72]

Without such direction, the organisational politics inherent to companies can ultimately

“sabotage the project” [73]. The role of senior executives will be further probed in section

2.4.4.

To alleviate such consternation, a change sponsor can call upon several approaches each

with differing degrees of applicability [74]. For example, managers can remove any

feelings of anxiety or fear arising out of inaccurate or insufficient information by

advocating an extensive programme of communication and education. This approach

helps foster a relationship between hierarchies that serves to dispel feelings of mistrust.

This trusting relationship can be reinforced through management promoting staff

participation and involvement in the change process by means of a compelling mission

and a set of values with which employees can identify. By implementing their practical



ideas where appropriate, staff become more motivated and respond by offering their

commitment to the programme.

Alternatively, management can resort to more direct methods such as manipulation and

co-opting. This manner involves the explicit selection of information disseminated to

staff and the instillment of a particular individual(s) in implementing the change

initiative. Management can take this a stage further by wielding explicit and implicit

coercion where people are forced into accepting change.

Resistance to change is therefore context based. People will react differently to change

according to the environment in which it is conceived. For this reason, no magic formula

exists for alleviating the problem. Different organisations, situations and other inherent

governing factors will determine the most amenable solution. Each of the above change

strategies have their own relative merits and drawbacks. There is no quick fix or list of

ingredients that can act as a universal panacea. As Dawson stresses:

"...there can be no simple prescriptions for managing organisational transitions

successfully. What may prove successful in one context and in one time may not

prove to appropriate to comparative companies operating from different

locations at some future point in time" [75].

It is therefore important that change agents are best kept informed of any impending

voices of dissent and recognise the symptoms of resistance early on in the change

programme.

2.4.4 Leadership as Change Sponsors

Leaders are inherently responsible for fostering their own respective organisational

cultures [76]. Thus, the onus must therefore reside with them for implementing and



advocating organisational change. There is no doubt as to how critical the leader's role is

in a change initiative:

"...a reengineering project, like any major change programme, can produce

lasting results only if senior executives invest their time and energy" [77]

The exact contribution leadership enacts in a fluxing environment is in managing the

dynamics. As Duck explains:

“The fundamental job of leadership is to deal with the dynamics of change, the

confluence and congruence of the forces that change unleashes, so that the

company is better prepared to compete” [78].

By their very actions, leaders play a perfunctory role in formulating and executing

policies and standards for organisational members and in uniting and impelling them.

The onus is on these people to take on the role of change agents to facilitate creativity

and innovation within the organisation.

In this context, the essence of a leader is taken to both represent the CEO as well as

leaders in the context of organisational projects. Leading change is not to suggest that it

is the action of one particular individual. In steering a change initiative, sponsors are

faced with a complexity of multi-dimensional issues which penetrate enumerous

hierarchies and different functional areas [79].

Thus, in order to effectively manage the array of ensuing problems, “leading change

necessitates a leadership which can operate with multiple levers and at multiple levels”.

Consequently, “such breadth of activity cannot be accomplished by one person or

through single episodes or programmes” [80]. It requires the skill and determination of

people to challenge accepted paradigms of behaviour and practices and then searching

for, and driving through new ways of thinking and working.



2.4.5. Conclusions

Success in a reengineering programme primarily depends on fostering the appropriate

management mindset that is conducive to continuous change rather than applying the

right technical tools [81]. The effective management of change must involve the bi-

directional flow of information - both top-down and bottom-up. However, top

management must show consistency and coherence in their approach. They should be

seen to be following up their own directions and recommendations with affirmative

action in driving the change initiative forward. Both informal and formal communication

channels should be exploited. But senior management must maintain adequate controls

on informal channels as they can be a breeding ground for suspicion and confusion.

Most management change programmes go astray because there is no atmosphere of trust

[82]. Without such trust there will not be any followers and what is a leader without

followers? Effective leadership is not an essence of being clever, it is more a matter of

being consistent [83].

Much has been written in this chapter on the importance of organisational

communication to the company’s success. This importance is not only relevant to

managing change successfully, but to the overall operational success of a company. A

major component of organisational failure is the poor lines of communication between

specialised functional business units [84]. Problems and issues relevant to particular

business projects can become enlarged to the point of crises if they are not aired and

expressed to the appropriate people. The result is that these crises become harder to

solve and may set the change programme unnecessarily back in time. Effective

communication requires the anxieties and expectations of organisational members to flow

up and down the company.

However, there is no short road to fostering this atmosphere [85]. The human dynamics

involved are often complex and unpredictable and are thus not subject to a quick fix. The

change process is not a rationalistic linear sequence of events or activities in which



constant progress is made [86]. Rather it is a random process consisting of parallel

activities where every member of the organisation should be involved.

However, although managing change successfully is a critical and important issue, it is

not an end in itself [87]. The issue must not become the sole purpose or objective of

Business Process Reengineering. The goal of BPR remains performance improvement

through focusing on processes. Tackling change arises out of this quest. It should be

appropriately managed through adequate planning and direction from top level

management to drive the programme through. Those who can successfully unite the cold

logic of business with the soft side of people issues will realise the huge advances in

performance that were first promised by Hammer and Champy. The role of technology

in fostering this relationship is one which has caused much debate and is where I next

turn my attentions.

2.5 IT as Driver or Enabler?

Technology has an important role to play in catalysing the successful reengineering of

business processes. In certain circumstances, business processes cannot be redesigned

without first initiating the application of information technology. However, it’s

definitive capacity is somewhat immersed in debate. On the one hand is the ‘IT as

enabler’ camp, who advocate that technology merely aids and supports the

implementation of BPR, whereas on the other hand is the ‘IT as driver’ advocates, who

maintain that technology is responsible for driving the change program. Both of these

arguments hold to a certain degree and their validity is contextual. The relative merits of

each opposing view are briefly discussed below.



2.5.1 IT as Enabler

Coulson-Thomas believes that “technology is seen not as an end in itself, but as a set of

tools to be used, where appropriate, to support the way managers prefer to work and

think, and enable more of them to move closer to their full potential” [88]. The crux of the

matter is that IT can facilitate increases in productivity. Gary Loveman, a Harvard

business school professor states that these gains “come not because the technology is

whizz-bang, but because it supports ideas in business processes” [89].

As one respondent retorted to a Price Waterhouse/Financial Times survey,

“It would be difficult for IT to drive BPR. It must be generated from within the

operational side of the business with IT providing support where possible” [90]

Rowland is even more refined in his approach when he purports that “IT may be an

enabler of new ways of working but it is not a requirement” [91]. He concludes that those

people who uphold this view are biased because they are either technologists or have

something to gain from promoting this creed. As such, IT according to this notion, is not

the driving force behind BPR. Rather the “motivation for reengineering has to come

from the business itself” [92].

2.5.2. IT as Driver

A great many authors perceive that IT has a more incisive role to play in redesigning

business processes. Gouillart and Kelly believe that, in an organisations quest for

transformation, technology "is so powerful that a company's leadership can change the

rules of the game" through its application [93]. Davenport and Short echo this claim.

They maintain that IT and BPR form both a supporting and fortifying partnership and

argue that “IT should be viewed as more than an automating or mechanising force; it can

fundamentally reshape the way business is done” [94]. They proceed by stating that “IT

can actually create new process design options, rather than simply support them” [95].



Hendry is in the same frame of mind as he explicitly details how IT is a critical

component in forming the basis for "engineered processes; it also provides...the ability to

undertake the redesign, maximising value added and minimising costs over the large

range of interdependent variables that enter into a complex administrative system." [96].

From this perspective, IT is more than just an enabler, it can vastly affect the success of a

reengineering programme.

2.5.3. Conclusion

BPR originated out of the field of IT and it is evident that the role of IT is still very

influential, both in formulating an organisations’ business strategy and implementing

BPR. Indeed, it is imperative that IT is aligned with corporate strategic planning to yield

long-term success in transforming the organisation [97].

The role of IT within the context of BPR is still a much hotly debated topic. Many of the

above arguments do nothing to explain the role of IT with any clarity. Some are

ambiguous and vague and only serve to cloud over the extent of the issue, whereas others

are just plain contradictory. What is apparent, however, is that the role of IT in

transforming businesses is very much context based. Some change programmes are

brought about purely for technological reasons, whereas in others it is more of a side

issue.

However, in a strictly BPR environment as advocated by Hammer, that role is a little

more precise. IT in this manner is perceived to enable the successful outcome of any

reengineering effort. Simply automating existing business processes does not constitute

BPR. Rather, this practice will only speed up inadequate processes which were

inefficient in the first place. The objective of reengineering is to exploit the capabilities

of IT by applying it to innovatively redesigned processes to achieve new goals.



2.6 Summary of Theory

This chapter has focused mainly on the people dynamics of change programmes and the

implications for BPR initiatives. BPR was first perceived to be a cold technical

management technique. But increasingly, people are now waking up to the fact that the

underlying traits and business objectives of BPR is akin to most change programmes.

Thus, a company who can manage the change successfully will reap the rewards

providing they adhere to the process focus as advocated by Hammer. In essence, BPR is

characterised by the following:

Focus is on creatively and innovatively redesigning new processes,

not improving existing processes;

Process breadth and depth. Holistic approach;

A clear business vision eliciting the objectives for BPR must be

outlined at the start. The focus must be on what objectives are of

particular importance to certain businesses;

Reengineering compounds the relationship of strategy and vision to

achieve dramatic increases in performance;

Executive top-level leadership must show and exercise commitment to

the radical change programme;

Appoint process owners. This person should be a senior manager with

direct process involvement and who has enough clout to push through

changes to the process;

Staff are empowered to make decisions at point where work is

performed. By streamlining process steps, responsibility and control

can be devolved to staff without the necessary introduction of

additional technological support;

IT strategy should be aligned in accordance with the overall business

strategy;



Improved procedures and processes should be continuously monitored

once implemented [98].



Appendix

ProcessRe-engineering

ProcessImprovement

ProcessRe-design

Differences between improvement, redesign and re-engineering.Source: McDonald, J (1995) “Understanding BPR in a week”, Hodder & Stoughton, pp. 7.

IT-based need

Risk Degree of change

Imperitive

High

Radical

Miinor

Low

Small

Low Dramatic

Low

Expectation of results

Short/Low Time & cost to improvement Long/High

Executive involvement Very High



Bibliography

NB: The numbering below starts at [10] because earlier references relate to chapters omitted due to

confidentiality.

[10] Goss, T. (1993) "The Reinvention Roller Coaster: Risking the Present for a Powerful Future", HBR,

Nov-Dec, pp.97.

[11] Hammer, M. (1990a), pp.104-112.

[12] Pascale, R. (1994) “Managing on the Edge”, Penguin.

[13] Earl, M. & Khan, B. (1994) "How New is Business Process Redesign", European Management

Journal, Vol.12, No.1, Mar, pp.20-30.

[14] Patching, D. (1995) “BPR - Reading Between the Lines”, Management Services, Feb, pp.14-17.

[15] Quoted in Kavanagh, J. (1994) "Farewell to antiquated operations - BPR is the restructuring of a

company and the way it operates", Survey of A-Z of Computing, Financial Times, 26 April.

[16] Porter, M.E. (1985) “Competitive Advantage: Creating & Sustaining Superior Performance”, Free

Press.

[17] Dale, M.W. (1994) “The Re-engineering Route to Transformation”, Journal of Strategic Change,

Vol. 3, pp.9.

[18] Hall, G. et al (1993) "How to Make Reng. Really Work", HBR, Nov-Dec, pp.121.

[19] Edwards, C. & Peppard, J. (1994) "Forging a Link Between Business Strategy and Business

Reengineering", European Management Journal, Vol.12, No.4, December, pp.410.

[20] Hendry, J. (1995) “Process Reengineering and the Dynamic Balance of the Organisation", Euro

Mgmt Jnl, Vol.13, No.1, Mar.

[21] Davenport, T.H. & Short, J.E. (1990) “The New Industrial Engineering: Information Technology and

Business Process Redesign”, Sloan Management Review, Summer, pp.13.

[22] Coulson-Thomas, C. (1993) “Transforming The Company”, Kogan Page, pp.61.



[23] Rarick, C.A. & Vitton, J. (1995) "Corporate Strategy: Mission Statements Make Cents", Journal of

Business Strategy, Vol.16, No.1, Jan/Feb, pp.12.

[24] Hammer, M. (1994) “Hammer defends re-engineering”, Economist, Nov 5, pp.96.

[25] see for example Edwards & Peppard (1994), pp.407-414.

[26] Miles, R..E. et al (1995) “Keys To Success In Corporate Redesign”, California Management Review,

Vol 37, No3, Spring, pp.128-145.

[27] see Whittington, R. (1993) “What is Strategy - and does it matter?”, Routledge, pp.2.

[28] Ansoff, H.I. (1965) "Corporate Strategy", McGraw Hill.

[29] Andrews, K.R. (1971) "The Concept of Corporate Strategy", Irwin.

[30] Mintzberg, H. & McHugh, A. (1985) “Strategy Formulation in an Adhocracy”, Administration

Science Quarterly; Vol. 30, No. 2, pp.160-197.

[31] Quoted from Edwards, C. & Peppard, J. (1994), pp.408.

[32] Quoted in Turner, C.H. (1990) "Henry Mintzberg: A profile", Business Strategy Review, Spring,

pp.58.

[33] de Geus, A.P. (1989) "Planning as Learning", HBR, Mar-Apr.

[34] Edwards, C. & Peppard, J. (1994), pp.409.

[35] Edwards, C. & Peppard, J. (1994), pp.409.

[36] Stewart, T. A. (1993) “Reengineering: The Hot New Managing Tool”, Fortune, August 23, pp. 33-37.

[37] Mintzberg, H. (1987) "Crafting Strategy", HBR , Vol.66, No.4, July-Aug, pp.66-75.

[38] Quinn, J. B. (1978) "Strategic Change: Logical Incrementalism", Sloan Management Review, Vol.

20, No.1, Fall, pp.7-21



[39] Quoted in Hammer, M. (1994) pp.96.

[40] Hammer, M. (1994) pp.96.

[41] Lloyd, T. (1994) "Management: Giant with feet of clay", Financial Times, 5 May.

[42] Fiedler, K.D. et al (1995) “An empirical study of information technology enabled bp redesign and

corporate competitive strategy”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol.4, Iss.1, February,

pp.17-30.

[43] Calori, S. and Atamer, T. (1990) “How French Managers Deal with Radical Change”, Long Range

Planning, Vol.23, No.6, pp.50.

[44] Spiker, B.K. & Lesser, E. (1995) “Change Management”, Journal of Business Strategy, Vol.16, No.2,

Mar/Apr, pp. 17-21.

[45] Taken from Dawson, P. (1994) “Organisational Change: A Processual Approach”, Paul Chapman

publishing, pp.13.

[46] Spiker, B.K. & Lesser, E. (1995), pp.17.

[47] Morris, D. & Brandon, J. (1993) “Reengineering Your Business”, McGraw-Hill, pp.72.

[48] Schein, E.H. (1989) “Organisational Culture and Leadership”, Jossey-Bass, pp.183.

[49] Hendry, J. & Hope, V. (1994) "Cultural Change and Competitive Performance", European

Management Journal, Vol.12, No.4, Dec, pp.401-406.

[50] Hendry, J. & Hope, V. (1994) pp.403.

[51] Williams, T. et al (1993) “Changing Culture - New Organisational Approaches”, 2nd ed, IPOS.

[52] Green, S. (1988) “Strategy, Organisational Culture and Symbolism”, Long Range Planning, Vol.21,

No.4, pp.121-129.

[53] Peters, T.J. and Waterman, R.H. ‘In Search of Excellence’, Harper & Row, 1982.



[54] Quoted in Hendry, J. & Hope, V. (1994), pp. 401.

[55] Peters, T. (1992) "Thriving on Chaos", Basingstoke:Macmillan, pp.401.

[56] Quoted in Green, S. (1988) pp.124.

[57] Hendry, J. & Hope, V. (1994), pp.402.

[58] Graves, D. (1986) “Corporate Culture and Change”, Frances Pinter.

[59] Schein, E.H. (1989) "Organisational Culture and Leadership", Jossey-Bass, pp. 271.

[60] Schein, E.H. (1989) pp. 296.

[61] Kennedy, Carol (1993) “Re-engineering: the Human Costs and Benefits”, Long Range Planning,

Vol. 27, No.5, pp.64-72.

[62] Hendry, J. & Hope, V. (1994), pp.404.

[63] Kotter, J.P. & Schelesinger, L.A. (1979) “Choosing Strategies for Change”, HBR, pp.71.

[64] Kotter, J.P. & Schelesinger, L.A. (1979) pp.68.

[65] Management Consultancy, July/Aug 1995, pp.7.




[69] Kaufman, H. (1971) “The Limits of Organisational Change”, University of Alabama Press, pp.8-23.

[70] Kaufman, H. (1971) pp. 8-23.

[71] Morris, D. & Brandon, J. (1993) pp. 124.



[72] Hall, G. et al (1993) pp.131.

[73] Hall, G. et al (1993) pp.131.

[74] see Kotter, J.P. & Schelesinger, L.A. (1979) pp.67-73.

[75] Dawson, P. "Organisational Change: A processual Approach", pp.72.

[76] Schein, E. (1989) pp.2.

[77] Hall, G. et al (1993) pp. 119.

[78] Duck, J.D. 1993) "Managing Change: The Art of Balancing", HBR, Nov-Dec, pp.118

[79] Pettigrew, A. & Whipp, R. (1993) “Managing Change for Competitive Success”, Blackwell, pp.166.

[80] Pettigrew, A. & Whipp, R. (1993) pp.281.

[81] Talwar, R. (1993)“Business Reengineering - a Strategic Approach”, Long Range Planning., Vol.26,

No.6, pp.22-40.

[82] Lorenz, C. (1994) “Management: New light on the Grail of Corporate Renewal”, Financial Times,

12 August.

[83] Drucker, P.F. (1993) "Managing For The Future", Butterworth Heinemann, pp.103.

[84] Betz, F. (1987) “Managing Technology”, Prentice-Hall.

[85] Kotter, J.P. (1995) “Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail”, HBR, Mar-Apr, pp.59-67.

[86] Atkinson, P.E. (1995) “The Competitive Advantage: Speeding up the Implementation of Change”,

Management Services, July pp.10.

[87] Rowland, P. (1994) “The process for improving business”, Independent, 22 June.

[88] Coulson-Thomas, C. (1993) pp.256.



[89] Quoted in “The Technology Payoff”, Business Week, June 14, 1993, pp.37.

[90] Cane, A. (1994) “Management: Re-engineering’s all the rage”, Financial Times, 24 June.

[91] Rowland, P. (1994).

[92] Talwar, R. (1993) "Business Re-engineering - a Strategy-driven Approach", Long Range Planning,

Vol.26, No.6, pp.22-40.

[93] Gouillart, F.J. & Kelly, J.N. 1995) "Transforming The Organisation", McGraw-Hill, pp.215.

[94] .Davenport, T.H. & Short, J.E. (1990) “The New Industrial Engineering: IT & Business Process

Redesign”, Sloan Management Review, Summer, pp.12.

[95] Davenport, T.H. & Short, J.E. (1990) pp.16.

[96] Hendry, J. (1995)

[97] Teng, J.T.C. et al (1994) “Re-designing Business Processes Using IT”, Long Range Planning, Vol

27, No 1, pp.95-106.

[98] See "Translating BPR into Bottom-Line Results", IE, Jan 1995, pp.27.


Documents

2 Discussion of BPR Theory - certago.com Literature Review.pdfThis chapter aims to discuss the fundamental theory behind Business Process Reengineering and ... the apparent failure