New Marketing40398154

Business Process Redesign: Tactics for Managing Radical Change Author(s): Donna B. Stoddard and Sirkka L.
Jarvenpaa Reviewed work(s): Source: Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 12, No. 1 (Summer, 1995), pp. 81107 Published by: M.E. Sharpe, Inc. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40398154 . Accessed: 04/12/2012 04:19
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
M.E. Sharpe, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Management Information Systems.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.204 on Tue, 4 Dec 2012 04:19:28 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
BusinessProcessRedesign: TacticsforManagingRadical Change

DONNA B. STODDARD AND SIRKKA L. JARVENPAA
intheHarvardBusiness School Professor Donna B. Stoddard has been an Assistant Systemsarea since 1991. She teaches in the first year of ManagementInformation the M.B.A. programand as part of the facultyforthe executive education course entitled SystemsResource. Her researchfocuseson manManagingtheInformation aging change in businessprocess redesign. is an Associate Professorof Information SlRKKA L. JARVENPAA Systems at the of Texas at Austin. She served as a Marvin Bower Fellow at Harvard University has publishedover thecalendaryearof 1994. Dr. Jarvenpaa Business School during of case studiesin academic and practitioner articlesand a number journals. Her thirty electroniccomresearchprojects focus on global information current technology, transformamerce,and the use of information technologyin radical organizational tions. radicalchange businessprocessredesign Abstract: By definition, (BPR) represents The radiand managedorganizations. structured in today's bureaucratic functionally cal change theorists predictthatto accomplish radical change requiresthe use of revolutionary change tactics. We propose thatas the "radicalness" of the planned morerevolutionary increases, changetacticsare used. We analyze thechange change whether and how revoluto understand tacticsofthreeorganizations'BPR initiatives evinced a varied amountof revolutionary tacticswere used. The initiatives tionary tacticsdependingon thescope and depthofplannedchange.The use ofrevolutionary tactics ofrevolutionary The frequency tacticsalso variedbythephase oftheinitiatives. and decreased as theyapproached was highestin the earlyphases of the initiatives of revolutionary We explore the reasons forreduced deployment implementation. to BPR practiceand research. tactics.We conclude by implications case study,change manageKey words and phrases: business process redesign, radical tactics, ment, evolutionary change, revolutionary phases, implementation tactics.
to respondto the Many organizations are in the midst of planned revolutions in 1980s as contracthat the businessenvironment. turbulent Organizations prospered are transforming are a good case in point.Many ofthesefirms torsto theU.S. military wasfunded Business SchoolDivision ofResearch and Thiswork byHarvard Acknowledgment: Innovation. for Business andYoungCenter Ernst
I Summer Journal 1995,Vol. 12,No. 1, pp. 81-107 ofManagement Information Systems
82
STODDARD AND JARVENPAA
their themselvesintocommercialcompetitors. They are redefining products, people, in structures, systems,and cultureto compete the commercialsector.For example, thedefensesector came from over50 percent oftherevenueof RockwellInternational The organization that sector. inthelate 1980s; in 1993 onlysome 20 percent came from massive conversionof not only its assets, but also its culture,work has undertaken and so on, to become a major playerin telecommunicapatterns, processes,thought and commercialelectronautomation, tions,automobilepartsmanufacturing, factory - "Profound so-called organizationaltransformation ics. Rockwell is accomplishing irreversible whichcreatean and actions, fundamental discontinuity changesinthought in theexperienceof a system"[1, p. 278]. Business process redesign (BPR), also known as reengineering [12] or process innovation[5], is offeredas an enabler of organizationaltransformation [6, 29]. a radicalimprovement believe that embracea BPR approachwhenthey Organizations and IT change. businessprocess,organization can be achieved by marrying structure, sector commercial andtraditional defensecontractors Former companies,suchas IBM to speed up slow or BPR have embraced alike Credit Corporationand Ford [12], "broken"business processes. Others,such as Taco Bell [13], have embracedBPR to of their business. enable theredefinition factorin achieving is Information technology usually a necessarybut insufficient business process redesign.IT has been describedas both a strategic catalystand an enabler of BPR [5, 12]. Yet, the absence of needed IT capabilities can be a major thata to BPR. For example,a managerdescribedhow the data architecture inhibitor it made late 1980s easy to relatively company's London officehad establishedin the a process thathad been redesigned.The lack of develop new applicationsto support in the firm'sU.S. operationmeantthatsignifidata architecture such a well-defined to accomplish applications of similar to be committed cantly more resourceshad
scope. A systemsplanningor data-modeling projectmay providethe genesis forBPR as focuseson technology that a planning wakes up tothefact theorganization processthat when asked why BPR may not deliverthebusiness solutionsit needs. For example, officer(CIO) of a major had become a major agenda item,the chief information insurancecompanynoted: was linked toouroverall Inthelate1980s,I begantolookathowtechnology corpo- myintuthe how new I tried to assess rate impacted enterprise applications strategy. As I thedesired a lotbutnotgetting was that we wereinvesting ition productivity. we didnotchange we weredoing, itwasclearthat, on what generally, begantofocus we tooksophisticated automated. that werebeing theprocesses Rather, applications a needtoreengineer. I begantoenvision them ontoan old organization. andlayered itwas as ifwe hadbeenlookoffocus on thetechnology, inall ofouryears Further, thewrong endofthetelescope. ingthrough involvesstepping is reportedly radical change. "Process innovation Reengineering back froma process to inquireas to its overallbusinessobjective,and theneffecting in theway creativeand radical changeto realize orders-of-magnitude improvements The thatobjectiveis accomplished"[5, p. 10]. In their book,Reengineering Corpora-
BUSINESS PROCESS REDESIGN
83
Hammerand Champy [12] note: //,

can't be carriedout in small and cautious steps. It is an all-or-nothing Reengineering that impressiveresults.Most companies have no producesdramatically proposition thecourage to do it. For many,reengineering is theonly hope for choice butto muster business thatwill antiquatedways of conducting breakingaway fromthe ineffective, them. otherwisedestroy
One managerexplained,"BPR is about changingthe engines of flyingairplane." transformation. BPR is one approachto organizational to accomplishradicalchange? tactics Is BPR radicalchange?Whatarethenecessary radicalchange withtacticsthat In thispaper,we contrast changetacticsthatpromote to understand change. We then analyze three BPR efforts promote incremental tacticswereused ornotused. We conclude with whether, how,and whyrevolutionary to practiceand research. implications in termsof the scope and planned depthof differed Overall, the threeinitiatives but also by the variedacross the initiatives, tactics The of use revolutionary change. a The threecases suggestthatBPR may be revolutionary phases of the initiatives. take a long timeand involve approachto design.The realizationof thedesignmight an evolutionary approach.
theDegreeofPlanned Outcomes: Change Determining Change

The planned outcomes of change can be described in terms of scope and DEPTH.Scope includesthebreadthof change. Depth involves the natureof change. Radical change is highon bothscope and depth.
Scope ofChange
- for example, The scope of change denotes the organizationalreach of change one organization, one function, theimpactofchangewill be containedwithin whether BPR by definition boundaries[3]. Although or will cut across organizational [12, 25, in how wide to a be there seems functional boundaries, narrowly disparity 29] spans - this resultsin to another or broadlya process is viewed fromone BPR initiative Ford MotorComscope. The much-celebrated degreesof cross-functional differing area- acone functional to limited was BPR accounts largely project payable pany of functional IBM CreditCorporation collapsed a number counting[ 11]. By contrast, of the illustrates transformation Tradenet initiative BPR its areas with [12]. Singapore bodies [16], of trade-related across a number coordinating relationships
ofChange Planned Depth

as well as thecontextof intentions on thestrategic The natureof change is dependent to dramatically intentions: start with the efforts often BPR following change [24]. or service customer reducecost,to dramatically employeequalityof life,or improve thebasic rulesof business. For example, IBM CreditCorporation to reinvent sought
84
The focus of its initiative to reduce theturnaround timeforquotationsto customers. and by improving timeperquotation to cutcostsbycutting was efficiency, attempting the numberof deals handled with the existingstaff[12]. At Procterand Gamble, when it workedwith hoped to increasecustomerservice effectiveness management theorder-management/inventory Wal-Martto reengineer processforPampersdiapers wereinthefast-food that business, they recognized [12]. WhenTaco Bell management into the organization not in the Mexican-foodbusiness,BPR was used to transform business [13]. thenewlyredefined a deep changemustoccur in thekeybehaviorlevers an transform To organization, and sharedvalues, measurement of theorganization: systems, jobs, skills,structures, of plannedchange to thechange theextent information technology[10]. The greater For the the example, Otis Elevator [26] changed its levers, deeper planned change. work proceduresfor managing service requests,employee roles, culture,IT, and service. to improvecustomer and controlsystemsin an effort measurement BPR is commonlyfacilitated technology[5, 12]. IT-enabled outby information effectiveof in terms described have been in efficiency, organizational comes, turn, theorganization theapplicationtransforms [9]: ness, or whether atmeasurandoften faster towork allowusers intheefficiency category Applications better work to users allow in the lower cost. category effectiveness Applications ably inthetransformation work. toproduce andoften category Applications quality higher the andmayevenchange work thebasicwaysthat peopleanddepartments change itself. of the business nature enterprise very withthe depthof change. When the only This classificationof change is consistent of manual tasks IT-enabled change), mere automation change lever used is IT (i.e., in turn, in efficiency requireschangesnotonly occurs,resulting gains. Effectiveness, in turn but also in skills,job roles, and work flow. Transformation in technology, assumes a major change in most of the change levers of the organization, including least is the Automation schemes. deep; the structure, culture,and compensation of change. is thedeepestform transformation and transformational cross-fiinctional In additionto BPR accomplishing changes,it For example,Hammerand Champy is also expectedto change theorganization/asi. shouldbe long enoughfora companyto move [ 12, p. 2 12] notethat"Twelve months release of a reengineered of a case foractionto thefirst fromarticulation process."
ofChange theTactics Process: Determining Change

The pace of change is dependent on the process - that is, tactics, or techniques- used to encourage an organization's membersto accept and to enact a organizational proposed change [23]. A change process thatcomplies withcurrent is inherently and incentive values and norms, skills,structures, evolutionary. systems thestatusquo, createsa new vision, challengesorundermines By contrast, changethat and accomplishes fundamental change in values and norms,work practices,and is revolutionary structures change [24]. Our basic suppositionformanagingchange tactics in BPR is simple: different initiatives requiredifferent change management
85
Radical ina short ofchange. onthe (a transformational change change type depending necessitates incremenoftime) likewise, tactics; revolutionary change usually period tactics. talchange evolutionary change suggests
Change Evolutionary
tothe that isadapted assume models paceandcapabilities change change Evolutionary toenable is a and communication ofpeopleandwidespread, keytactic frequent, open that cannot models also assume incremental change [7, 15,17].Evolutionary change the must lead who will be affected those and at the outset be fully by change planned from various levels Broad in thechange and participate participation process[17]. of the least usuallymeansthatthepace of changeis adaptedto thecapabilities intheorganization. orgroup element changeable a gradual, As such,evolutionary stagedsociotechnical changemodelssuggest twobasicassumpreflect this view from derived tactics The approach. change change increments in time and is best 1 takes about tions accomplished small ( ) change change: and the between is a recursive and(2) change ata time, technology adaptation process has a viewof change cumulative thisincremental, theuserenvironment. Although ofscience facets invarious [7] andsocialscience (for example, biology longtradition of these assumptions change. underlying challenge [20]),newtheories
Change Revolutionary
theorists to radical organization [e.g.,9, 27, 28], a fondamental change According the or be Rather, cannot comfortably. gradually, piecemeal, accomplished change difficult and of new forms The creation must unfold requires processes rapidly. change theexistheories revolutions. acknowledge revolutionary change Although compact of ofincremental tence (i.e.,equilibrium), they argue periods stability during changes ofrevolutionary comeas a result canonly that (i.e.,"big upheaval change anymajor bang"). a deep fundamental ofradical In thevocabulary theorists, requires change change business basic or paradigm structure assumptions, change[8], thatis, the shift The structure and culture, existing deep structure change. organizational practices, andreconfigdismantled must be but stable limits and periods during change persists the is structure the Unless of in ured periods revolutionary changed, deep change. is thestatus back toward behaviors changeprogram quo once theformal migrate and ambiguity to be over.Some levelof identity declared crisis, disorder, usually structure a [24]. change precedes deep Radical changeoutcomes revolutionary (i.e., broadand deep changes)require is short time frame when the 1).Thereverse (see figure particularly processes, change ofchange without theoutcomes canbe revolutionary A process true. is not, however, radical [8]. being toaccomtactics ofrevolutionary a number haveproposed theorists Radical change tofree members is needed existing [9,22, 27, 28]. A newvision change plishradical
86
Process
Evolutionary
Incremental
Revolutionary
and Incremental pain forrisk benefit improvement Little
Outcome
R * rai Kamcal Continuous incremental overa long improvement ina short Radicalchan&e
period
oftime period
1. Process and ofChange Outcome Figure and andbuildconfidence ofthelegaciesofthepast,allowthem to see alternatives, toaccomplish for thefuture. Newmanagers areneeded "frame-breaking" capabilities should be excluded becauseof cognitive, Current motivational, employees change. ofwhom and barriers tochange. andobligational many Existing managers employees, with "out-of-the-box arecomfortable thestatus have quo,may difficulty performing orpower, control, Also,existing losing opportunities, thinking." employees mayfear be the new andthat cannot tasks. Existing employees might further they accomplish the who oflegions tostakeholders inside andoutside constrained because organization executives thestatus etal. [27] found that recruited "externally prefer quo. Tushman more than executive arethree times toinitiate likely frame-breaking change existing in more than80 teams.Frame-breaking was with CEO succession change coupled ofthecases."Halletal [10,p. 124]reported infour ofthefive successful that percent BPR initiatives, "newchief inbefore orduring the executives were projects." brought in must that are isolated start small and Moreover, revolutionary change populations the is before further Isolation the avoid its change spread [8]. helps group having focus andenergies diluted inertia. Someexisting members bythe surrounding organizational also haveto be removed in order to communicate willnotbe that resistance might tolerated. An organization that holdsontoitspromise ofno layoffs violates thebasic tenet ofrevolutionary for rather than havechange change: peoplemust qualify change topeople. adapted ofrevolutionary models that a failure, ora crisis, is required toset Proponents argue thestagefor Gersick that revolutionary [8] similarly changes. argues peopleappear most andaccepting newsolutions when faceinsurmountable capableofcreating they that cannot be solvedwith thecurrent structure. Criseshelpprovide problems deep decisive in systems' breaks inertia andcan tapmajorsources ofenergy for creating the new rules forthe workplace. A crisisis particularly to generate necessary tochanges ina wider receptivity population. Communication aboutthechangeshouldbe first to a smallgroupof targeted and after the has taken a in hold that Kanter et gatekeepers spread only change group.
87
al. note,"Too often, communication translates intoa unilateral directive.Real coma the different munication makers" requires dialogue among [14]. change Radical theoristsdo not refutethat an anticipatedcrisis mightbe a sufficient forradicalchange.Thatis, management can "createa crisis"and a sense of motivator to motivate members to organizational get on board witha change program urgency caution that a of firmsinitiate [14]. They do, however, "only farsighted minority declines" [27]. In addition, the"old" organiperformance upheavalpriorto incurring zation mighthave to be dismantledand leftdisorganizedforsome periods of time beforefundamental changestake hold. thecreationoftemporal Gersick[8] believes thatsuccessfulradicalchangerequires milestones.Temporal milestonesoccur when people become acutelyaware thatthe thatif organization members and theyhave to move on. She maintains timeis finite then a era has that realize to ended, they may accept that the particular begin no longerbe appropriate. chosenmight Temporal theyhad previously approachesthat milestoneshelp to create the sense of urgency,and make people reevaluate past choices and takenew steps.
Tactics andRevolutionary Change Evolutionary

and revolutionary A comparisonof the evolutionary change models suggestssome models and revolutionary Bothevolutionary and some majordifferences. similarities of any large-scalechange advocate having senior executivesupportor sponsorship initiative.Both argue for clear objectives and vision. However, the revolutionary models and theevolutionary from outsidetheorganization, models call forleadership tactics call for The theexistingseniormanagement. forleadershipfrom evolutionary in the design and of the current broad participation process ownersand contributors of the current for the exclusion call tactics The process revolutionary implementation. models advocate broad,organization-wide ownersand users.While theevolutionary models suggestmoreselectedand focused,face-tothe revolutionary communication, modeladvocatesflexible The evolutionary communication. milestones; face,one-on-one that modelproposes The evolutionary milestones. modeladvocates therevolutionary rigid that radical a for desire driven be can changeproposes people self-improvement; by change the crisisstateof the and sometimes mustbelieve cognitively emotionally experience to accomplishdeep structural In summary, change,the radical models organization. of to assumed be be cannot that rather, theyhave to be change; capable people suggest for models The for changeto people. argue adapting evolutionary qualified change.
IT andModelsofChange
also prescribedifferent and evolutionary The revolutionary sequencing perspectives oftechnology change,a gradually stagedsociotechnical changes. Underevolutionary first is followed. ora technical-systema social-systemstrategy changeoccurs.Either of both and social assumes simultaneous technical change Revolutionary change systems(i.e., theall-at-oncestrategy).
88
Liker et al. suggest four alternative approaches to managingtechnologypaced technicalchange based on thepace and scope of sociotechnicalchange: all-at-once, or graduallystagedsociotechnicalchange [19]. The social-system-first, system-first, to make rapid,radical would attempt an organization assumes that all-at-oncestrategy The in and social its technical systemsconcurrently. technical-system-first change approach suggestsa more gradualchange; IT changes are expectedto induce social approach calls for "gettingyour house in order" changes. The social-system-first and changing[ 18] beforemakingmajortechnological changes.Itassumedunfreezing new a before the social system technology. installing an interactive, underscore ofproduction Studieson theimplementation technologies habe been staged approach to change [17]. Highly successfultechnologytransfers and technology.Change foundto requirethe mutualadaptationof the organization emergedslowly and graduallyas large and small recursivecycles bridgedthe gaps Much of this and therestoftheorganization. betweentechnology and misalignments change process could nothave been plannedin thebeginning. Several others describe technology-basedchange as an emergentprocess: the users and consequences of information technology emerge unpredictablyfrom of CT For example, a studyon the introduction complex social interactions[21]. of the radiologists' scanners in radiology describes how changes to the structure work emerged unplanned over time fromtheirinteractionswith the technology libraries public libraries,the highest-performing [2]. In a study of eighty-five and of both level organizational changes technological implementeda balanced thanone or theother[4]. However, thesequencing of these innovationsalso rather were Librariesthatadopted organizationalinnovationsfirst affectedperformance. ultimatelythe best performers. and revolutionary thechange tacticsforthe evolutionary Table 1 contrasts change forcommunithestrategy models in seven areas: leadership, employeeinvolvement, and IT. We structure/culture forBPR, milestones, cation,themotivation organization and of use of therevolutionary thecontext nextanalyze theuse and moreimportantly the research We start BPR initiatives. in three tactics by outlining change evolutionary approach.
Research Approach
A case study method was deployed explore how and why different change tacticswereused. A multiple-case designinvolvedthreeBPR initiatives management in threedifferent companies. The threecases variedin termsof the expectedchange could be one was theunitof analysis.A BPR initiative outcomes.The BPR initiative interrelated or a set of projects. project The firstauthor's organizationhad an established relationshipwith the three At thetimeof from previousresearchand educationalactivities. companies resulting a the study,one of the BPR initiatives had been completedand hence represented initial of and in the The other two initiatives were case phases pilot retrospective study. the fieldimplementation. research; Hence,thedesignphasesrepresented retrospective
89
Theories: andRevolutionary Table 1 Evolutionary Change ofTactics A Comparison

Evolutionary Leadership Employee involvement Use insiders Use current managers and employees who are representativeofthe populationofemployees Revolutionary Use outsiders Exclude current managers and employees where possible. Involveonly"best ofthe breed" and those who are dissatisfiedwiththe status quo. Employ employees Isolate the full-time. team reengineering One-on-one communication to key stakeholders only Crisis or failure Firm Qualifyemployees for withnew change who fit cultureand organizational structure Simultaneous change of technologyand social systems
Communication Motivation Milestones Culture/structure change
Broadlycommunicated plans Self-improvement Flexible Adapt to existing employees
IT change
Process or social system first. gradual, Alternatively, of staged implementation technologyand social systems
data collection concurrent involving phasesrepresented pilotand implementation over to fivemonths three andtheorganization theresearcher between contact every and a research an eighteen-month (or a researcher study period.Bothresearchers and of facts in all were interviews, cross-checking allowing assistant) key present impressions. andorganionwhat datawerecollected In eachcase study, practices retrospective The data the efforts. to initiate the zationalinterventions triggered organization with interviews semistructured involved collection questions. open-ended primarily wasused Aninterview interviews. with were Sitevisits guide telephone supplemented ofpeopleinterviewed Thenumber oftheinterviews inmost percase (see appendix). involved and most were to from varied managers employees eight twenty-five; study and theIT director, In all cases,thebusiness in theBPR initiative. owner, process executive The company oftheBPR teamwereinterviewed. members management withthe weresupplemented The interviewees in twocompanies. was interviewed and new of and observations andproject ofmemos reviews technology work reports procedures.
90
on Three Initiatives Background Reengineering

Table 2 outlines the organizational context of the initiatives and describes atthethree theplannedchangesintasks,structure, and culture organizations: systems, FinanceCo, DefenseCo, and FoodCo. ofthefirm services One of themaindivisions FinanceCois a largefinancial company. marketer to from a mass 1 with to transform the BPR in late 980s an company attempt began because The division had experienced a personalized services margins declining company. was The BPR initiative customers. coststo acquire with andhigher ofproblems persistence and in overall in significant aimedto result profitability growth. improvements of industrial DefenseCo was a large manufacturer equipment.The BPR initiative sold military occurredin the largestbusiness thatprimarily equipmentto the U.S. and the downsizingof the U.S. defense Because of the restructuring government. divisionwitha a profitable of the faced the challenge maintaining industry, company the order become had and Cost in demand. reduction downsizing cutting significant in resulted had environment already oftheday. The new competitive majorcycle-time fromsix to twelve monthsto reductionin submitting proposals to the government to contract the timebetweenthe award of the manufacturing threemonths.Further, this All to twelve. months from was cut of the thedelivery put twenty-four equipment to reduceitscycle timeand hand-offs. pressureon purchasing was undertaken The BPR effort and manufacturer. FoodCo was a largefoodretailer thathad nearlyforty unitof the firm in the manufacturing manufacturing plants all had unit the The head of States. the United across previously implementedan manual manufacturing systemin one of the plantsin the 1960s and now integrated inall oftheplants MRPII system a standard envisionedimplementing computer-based and overall enhance in orderto enhanceeach individual control, effectiveness, plant's and suppliers. allow theunitto leverageits size withcustomers
Scope ofBPR Initiatives

At FinanceCo,thescope included initiatives. The scope of BPR variedacrossthethree was expectedto take The initiative than theentire of more 2,000 organization people. teams BPR implementation seven to ten years. In 1992, FinanceCo had over twenty 1993 , of in the summer and In early1993 , theyhad eight teamsinprogress in progress. unit's 3,500 employees would be six teams. At FoodCo, most of the manufacturing withsavingsof $200 million The initiative was estimated to cost $40 million, affected. over tenyears.The initiative was expectedto take6.5 yearsto complete.At Defenseof 165 people; the initiative Co, the scope was limitedto the purchasing department was completedin threeyearsfrom its inception (see figure 2).
Planned ofBPR Initiatives Depth

The mostradical outcomeswere soughtafter at FinanceCo, followedby FoodCo. At BPR the was initiated as a the company's strategy; resultof redefining FinanceCo,
91
Table2
Overview ofReengineering Initiatives 1993 FinanceCo 1993 DefenseCo

Industrial equipment manufacturer whose defense segment had revenue of $1 .3 approximately billion Refinedworkin the purchasingarea in one ofthe companies in the defense systems segment.
FoodCo 1993
Food manufacturer withrevenue in excess of $1 .5 billion and 3,500 employees
Company context
Mail orderinsurance. Revenue in excess of $600 million, employs 2,000 people
Sought to transform Reengineering initiative description company. Eightto ten reengineering initiatives underway, Three initiatives were testingnew ways of doing business. The others were reengineering workflowin operations areas. Changes to tasks
of an Implementation MRPII system in forty plants rangingfrom bakeries and milkprocessing plants to nonfoodplants,
Jobs to be completelyJobs were completelyJobs, processes, flow redefined.A process- redefinedas buyer and information and plannerposition to be redefinedand based vision and a was combined intoa standardized across new strategicbusithe plants, ness model were commodity role, administrator developed forthe company. Eliminateda number Movingtowarda ofmiddle-manager management team positions. through and a flatter structure organization. Movingfrommainframesystems and towarda clientserver/Windows environment. uncHeadquarters f tions redefinedto enable implementation,
Structural changes
Information systems changes
InstalledMacintosh To replace three PCcomputers in an envi- based manufacturing thathad tra- controlsystems ronment been only plants had impleditionally mented in nonstanIBM. Also, introduced prototyping dard ways. Installing withusers in an envi- MRPII and IBM ronment embracing AS400 computers, new technologies for traditional systems the company, development lifecycle approach to development. A more participative culturewas introduced as employees were involvedin the design and developmentofthe new systern. Many plantemployees would have to interfacewith computers forthe first time. Interdependence between plant departmentswould increase dramatically.
Culturalchanges
Culturalaudit suggested need to change significantly the culture.
92
STODDARD
AND JARVENPAA
Scope of Change Functional Efficiency Planned Depth of Change DerfenseCo Cross-functional Organization-wide
Effectiveness
FoodCo
Transformation
Finance Co
A Comparison Outcomes: ofCases Figure2. Planned shareand theorganization, whichwas losingmarket management soughtto transform The and functional work structures, experiencingdecliningprofitability. processes, be to enable a values cementedwithinformation would have to technology changed new businessstrategy. FinanceCo expectedbothto offer new and innovative products and to be able to support in new and innovative its customers ways. For example,the customer would be servedby a dedicatedcrossfiinctional teamthat handledbothsales and servicetransactions forthecompany's variedproducts. At DefenseCo, theBPR initiative was to improve theflowofworkwhiledoingmore with less. The redesignedprocess was also expected to provide managementwith bettermetricsto measure how well the department was doing. Customers (e.g., had traditionally viewed the service level of the purchasingdepartmanufacturing) mentas poor. The department was inundated withpaper,and it was not unusual for orders to be or to lost in someone's in-basket. The BPR effort purchase misplaced get was to move away from a functional view to a processview. Two job categorieswould be collapsed to one and one-third of thedepartment's staff would be eliminated. At FoodCo, the expectationswere more of effectiveness, followedby efficiency. The seniorvice president formanufacturing explained, Fora number ofyears I haveenvisioned a standard implementing computer-based systeminall ofourfacilities, that wouldnotonlyenhance ourability tomanage individual plants butwouldprovide theinformation we needtoleverage oursize when we dealwith andcustomers. Thechallenge that we faceas we try toaccomplish suppliers this is that there arevastdifferences inthecharacteristics andlife oftheprodcycles uctsproduced inour40 plants. at implementing a standard Yet,ifwe aresuccessful andsystem, theopportunity is enormous. process In thelate 1980s thehead ofthebusinessunithad establisheda teamto comparethe unit's manufacturing systems with those of competitors.The team found that FoodCo's systemsand processes were highlyinadequate. Hence, the need forBPR
BUSINESS PROCESS REDESIGN 93 Table 3 Hammer's Reengineering Principles:Mapping of Three Cases FinanceCo
Organize around outcomes not tasks Have those who use the outputof the process the process perform Subsume information-processing workintothe real workthatproduces the information Treat geographicallydispersed resources as thoughtheywere centralized Capture workonce and at the source Yes Yes Yes
DefenseCo
Yes Somewhat Yes
FoodCo
No Somewhat Yes
Yes
Yes
NA Yes Yes
Yes Phase 3 Yes
Linkparallel activitiesinstead of in- Yes theirresults tegrating Yes Put the decision pointwhere the and buildcontrol workis performed intothe process and Champy[12]. Hammer [1 1] and Hammer Adaptedfrom
visionand theknowledgeofwhatother was developedbased on seniormanagement's theirprocesses. as a resultof redefining to able been had accomplish organizations from reduced to BPR the plant losses, yield major savings Managementexpected value reduced per-unit reduction, costs, inventory potentialincreases in purchasing were expected Otherbenefits in productivity. public sales, and overallimprovements frombetter-organized information, improvedcustomerservice, improvedperformance visibility, variances, improductivity availabilityof instantstandard-based business functions. of and full and integration product provedcosting/pricing, believed thattheyhad undertaken the firm'smanagement In all threeinitiatives, to Hammer's [11,12] principlesof BPR. In BPR. Table 3 maps the threeinitiatives businessprocessreengincalled theinitiatives two oftheorganizations, management as businessprocess to the initiative referred the in third the case, organization eering; and revoluIn thenextsection,we analyze theuse of the evolutionary optimization. change tacticsin thethreeinitiatives. tionary
inBPR Initiatives Observed Tactics Change

NO INITIATIVE SOLELY USED EITHER REVOLUTIONARY OR EVOLUTIONARY TACTICS.
the initiatives Rather, sampled bothtypesof tacticsalthoughto a varyingextentby use of revolutionary The more frequent the phase of the initiatives. change tactics
94
at FinanceCo and FoodCo. occurred during design than during implementation FinanceCo and FoodCo exhibiteda revolutionary approachto design,but an evoluDefenseCo deployedbothrevotionary approachto change duringimplementation. and tactics and implementation. during design lutionary evolutionary Hence, the moreradical theplannedchange,themoretheorganizations employed butnotnecessarily during implementation. design, revolutionary changetacticsduring of actual changeoccurs themajority is somewhatparadoxicalgiventhat This finding used for each BPR tactics the 4 Table change compares during implementation. tacticsdecreased or the use of revolutionary initiative. Table 5 summarizeswhether that ofthedesign from theinitiatives' increasedduring phase pilotand implementation phase.
Leadership
The leadership change tactics used at FinanceCo and FoodCo were revolutionary At DefenseCo, theapproach duringimplementation. duringdesign,butevolutionary and revolutionary to leadershipwas a mix of evolutionary duringdesign and implementation. This inflowdid talentin thebeginning. used new management All threeinitiatives of outside use most the made FinanceCo over time. continue managers not,however, ofoperations/custoand a new seniorvice president A new president inthebeginning. and implement were hired,and BPR emergedas a way to prototype mermarketing of The new thenew strategic from theideas thatsurfaced president process. planning initiativesand was actively the organizationregularlyendorsedthe reengineering in the communicationto the broader organization.The senior vice participating effort. was seen as the ownerand championof thereengineering president
forBPR was establishedby managers At DefenseCo and FoodCo, themomentum of years.However,in bothcases, fora number who had been partof theorganization new managers were broughtin to provide day-to-day project leadershipafterthe another had been funded.At DefenseCo, a managercame from initiatives partof the and was the scrutinized The new skeptical initially quite proposal manager company. about theneed forthe initiative:
Since I had been a customerof thepurchasing area, I knew therewas an opportunity in serviceto customersand reductions to make changes thatwould resultin better almost BPR initiative of the headcount.I was initially and, quite frankly, skeptical When theBPR initiative proposal crossed my desk, pulled theplug on the initiative. we were in a downsizingphase. I knew thatI could eliminatepeople fromthepurchasing area and I didn't need a computersystemto do that.FromNovemberuntilJanuEven was essentiallyon hold untilI warilyagreed to move forward. ary,the initiative would have to genthatthe initiative withthe stipulation so, I agreed to move forward we would have to be erateheadcountsavings thatwere notvolume generated.Further, able to cut cycle timesand throughput. hired a manager specifically to manage the BPR initiative who had implemented an MRPII system at a smaller manufacturer.The manager was promoted FoodCo
95
.I
^^ -* C ^^ CO ^^ CO w^ C ^^ C w^ CO ^^ CO ^^ CO mm Q^
g~E-c
73 LL
qQ-2
IISSIH
LU
ce
22
LU LU
ce
22
LU LU
LJJ
LU
|
c
, I
Q.
<0
1 i
a:
I
(0
11 i i
lu lu tr
^ '5 ^
| |
C^C^COCd
I I
I
(0
tr

"
|
||||||
LU 2
.2
LU
||
CL
LU
| .il .il .i 1
2 >5>^
LU 2 LU 2 LU Ct
Cl
^^&*^^*(0
I 1
>>
njos
.i
>
LU
c*
OC
CC
I I
Cm
<
^^
LL
"i.0"il S
I
LU
8 LU
il 8
LU
S LU
il
S LU
S LU
'
1 8
LU
*^
(0
--
*<f3
'^
|
T
'+
*3
LU c
(T
LU
! iiuiiif
96
orDecreaseofRevolutionary inPilot/Implementation Table 5 Increase Tactics to DesignPhase Phase Compared FinanceCo

Leadership/management -New managers and leaders -Full-time dedicated managers -Outside consultants Employee involvement -Qualified members (best of breed type) - Full-time team members -Isolated teams fromrest of operations Communication -Limited (need to know only) forBPR Motivation Crisis Milestones Rigid Cultureand structure change -Layoffs of employees - New structures(departments,teams) - New roles - New compensation schemes IT change -Simultaneity oftechnology and social system changes i i i I ^
DefenseCo
i No change No change t No change
FoodCo
i i i No change I
No change ^ No change No change i ^ I 1?
No change No change No change t ' ' No change
No change No change
No change ' + 4,
theneedto with thecompany, months hisfirst three times reflecting eighteen during the tocarry outtheBPR andlegitimize business resources that hehadsufficient ensure dedicated wasalsoinitially team A full-time hewas attempting. management changes with thesystem. associated andtraining conversion thebusiness tomanage resources full-time fewer andinitial the management implementation, During pilots ofthe anofficer andFoodCo.AtFinanceCo, atFinanceCo tothe efforts were dedicated basis on a full-time initiatives the who coordinated design during reengineering company a AtFoodCo, andimplementation. additional wasassigned during pilots responsibilities a training overtime.For example, teamdecreased dedicated manager management activities. additional to the initiative also fiill-time on began perform working initially theusedecreased outside Allthree utilized consultants, during although companies rolesalso and FoodCo,their At FinanceCo implementation exceptat DefenseCo. in theearlyphasesthanin thelater weremorestrategic Theiractivities changed. case thebusiness to the andvalidate phases.At FoodCo,they helped define project
97
was approved.At FinanceCo, the consultants beforefunding helped to develop the and providedthe tools and methodsforBPR. During implenew business strategy the consultants' role was limitedto one of performing audits of the mentation, and assistingin software initiatives development. at DefenseCo, the consultant played a major role through design and By contrast, a visionforBPR and new roles.The The consultant's packageinspired implementation. The consultant tothepackagethat was purchased. modifications assistedwith consultant the to new of the processesincluding training employees. managed implementation
Involvement Employee
at FinanceCo and FoodCo during tacticswere revolutionary Employee involvement At duringimplementation. DefenseCo, the employee indesign, but evolutionary thanin design. in implementation was somewhatmorerevolutionary volvement At FinanceCo and FoodCo, employeesselectedto workon the design of the new to be "bestofbreed."At FoodCo, thedesignteamincluded processeswereconsidered each planttype.At FinanceCo, a crossfunctional, two management-level people from to develop a new multilevelteam of six employeesworkedwithoutsideconsultants initiatives. the of the work that specificimplementation strategy guided In both FinanceCo and FoodCo, employees assigned to design and test the new and were physicallyseparatedfrom to the effort processes were dedicatedfiill-time rework approaches. They were also constantly those who were using traditional whereas thenew businessstrategy, that mindedby management theywereembracing otherswere "in the old business." At FoodCo, plant employees were relocatedto
to workon the BPR initiative. headquarters At both FinanceCo and FoodCo, the numberof ftill-time people declined as the the more the people from "representative" projectsapproached pilotstage. Similarly, workforcewere involved.The pilotsalso occurredin thenormalworkareas. as a somecan be characterized DefenseCo' s approachto employee involvement flavorin implementawhatevolutionary changetacticin designwitha revolutionary workas ithad their to perform to continue wereexpected theemployees tion.In design, in the The defined. been traditionally designactivities. part-time participated employees of the new in thedesignandtesting toparticipate The opportunity processeswas a public reduction Because ofthedrastic was a "highperformer." theperson that acknowledgment were excluded more staff ofdepartmental people proportionately implementation, during initiatives. other two in the than DefenseCo at work from new Also, during processes thanthe all employeesswitchedto the new work approachesrather implementation, boththenew and theold waysof doingbusiness. maintaining organization
Communication
about the tacticin communicating followed a revolutionary None of the initiatives an broad all initiatives initiative. communication, evolutionary Rather, emphasized thestart. tactic,from
98
the seniorleadershipmetwithemployees at At FinanceCo, earlyin the initiative, and how theBPR would affect all levels to explainthenew businessvision,strategy, new workprocesses was shown in small interacemployees.A videotapesimulating articles numerous teamsalso prepared tiveround-table discussions.The reengineering and forthe parentcompany's newspaperand forthe organization'sown newsletter, the of and customers set up a kiosk in a lobby to inform reengineering employees was added to the initiative.A course thatcovered the basics of the new strategy curriculum. organization'straining in the BPR team were expectedto keep their At FoodCo, theplantrepresentatives theBPR teamheld weekly In addition, with the initiative's to date progress. plantsup newsletters everytwo to threemonths,and meetings,publishedwidely distributed was being on MRPII. The corporatestaff offered conceptual and hands-ontraining untilhis initiative of the the about the initiative informed through sponsor primarily in thefallof 1992. retirement DefenseCo held weekly 6:30 A.M. breakfastmeetingsopen to people fromall employeesinvolvedin theBPR providedstatus Duringthosemeetings, departments. were available to answer senior management and members team both and reports, 160 employees the of or so 40 department's employees questions.But onlythesame
to themeetings. tendedto come regularly the pilot and earlycontinuedduring broad communication In all threeinitiatives, overtime. decreased of the however, impact communication, phases; implementation in the initiative the of heard When some oftheemployeesfirst designphase), (usually or alreadyhappening.Since nothing theybelieved thatthe changes were imminent forsome time,employeesbegan to questionwhether was implemented change was communicated. what was attention to less to and tended being pay forthcoming
BPR for Motivation

thecompany tacticto motivating a revolutionary Duringdesign,FinanceCo exhibited At FoodCo, the the tacticwas evolutionary. forthe change; duringimplementation, AtDefenseCo, inbothdesignand implementation. innature was evolutionary motivation and as revolutionary was characterized themotivation implementation. during design at FinanceCo and atDefenseCo communicated Atthetimeofapproval,management FinanceCo's employeesweretoldthatfinancial in crisisterminology. the BPR effort resultswere poor and, if theywere to stayin business,the companyhad to change. theneed somewhatchanged of theinitiative, However,perhapsbecause of thelength in the eyes of those conducting pilots.They saw themselvesas helpingto implement rather thantrying serviceand sales strategies new customer-focused theorganization's to turn aroundthefirm'sfinancialperformance. At DefenseCo, the declining defense budgets demanded that eitherDefenseCo employees and managers figureout how to do more with less to compete forthe decliningdefensedollar or, as one managernoted,"None of us will have jobs." The crisis mentalitywas sustained in implementation, largely because of continuing personnellayoffs.
99
At FoodCo, the BPR was presentedas an opportunity forthedivision to generate more wealth for the company. The BPR' s financial implications represented significantcost reductions,80 percent of which would be due to material cost reductions. Employees were also informedof the benchmark study, that the organization had conducted showing that its informationsystems capabilities During implementation,the lagged behind those at other food manufacturers. the need to cut operating initiativewas associated with,as well as suffered from, costs drastically.The organizationhad experienced an unexpected "down" year followed by some plant closings, consolidations, and organizationaldownsizing. The financial situationresulted in the initiativebecoming under more financial The project experienced a reductionin its resources. scrutiny.
Milestones
At FoodCo and at DefenseCo, a revolutionary approachwas deployedformanaging tactic was maintainedat DefenseCo milestones duringdesign. The revolutionary but not at FoodCo. FinanceCo exhibitedan evolutionary duringimplementation, milestones to designand implementation. during approach at FoodCo and DefenseCo for schedule and established were milestones Rigid The same applied to FoodCo in the deadlines. to those adhered DefenseCo benefits. some slippage occurred because of design and pilot phases. In implementation, theinitiative. from resourcesdiverted with wereused at FinanceCo. The BPR involvedexperimenting Flexiblemilestones for the was timeframe overall and an of new ways developed doing business, Wherepriororganizational initiative. experiments sugcompanywidereengineering those set. For were milestones would a results, projects positive yield gested project to test"new" approaches,themilestoneswere flexible. initiated
andCulture Structure ofCurrent Change

and culture. The threeBPR projectsplanned revolutionary changes to the structure FoodCo FinanceCo and at as evolutionary The changes can be characterized (particat Defenseularlyin view of theplannedchanges). The changeswere mostprofound Co, althoughcontainedto one department. ofdesign,FoodCo and FinanceCo spentresourceson employee Since thebeginning and education forthe new requiredbehaviorsand values. Maintainingthe training foreducationbecame a challengeover time.The pace of necessarylevel of funding behavior and value changes slowed down with the decreased educational budgets
duringpilotsand implementation. At FinanceCo, major organizational changeswere piloted,butfewwere seen to be wide because of cost and risk.Duringthe pilot phases, organizationimplementable and products(i.e., by prosome key managersbegan to manage across functions For were teams example,personalcustomer-service piloted. cesses). Crossfunctional teams provided a single point of contact for a customer.The organizationalso
100
STODDARD
AND JARVENPAA
experimentedwith team-based and skill-based compensation.A senior manager elaborated: anddetolearn tocontinue willbe basedonjobs skills, willingness Compensation Ournewjob evaluation environment. ina team tofunction sysvelop,andtheability willtie ofskills. a wider temwillmotivate Gol-sharing array peopletodevelop as a whole. oftheteamandthecorporation totheperformance rewards individual was shelved,however,because manThe proposal forthe skill-basedcompensation and fairtransition a cost-effective unable to was plan to the new develop agement or down were scaled scheme. Most otherstructural/cultural puton hold. changes of cultural in terms littlewas accomplished At FoodCo, relatively change because of resourcesdevotedto the change, of plantresistance, projectdelays,the reduction thanon overall processes. For example, the initial and the focus on systemsrather notonlyto designbutalso to managethe outsideconsultants plannedcalled forhiring education and training programs.This was ruled out laterbecause of cost. Instead, time limited from plantsweregroomedto be coaches. Because oftheir representatives on PC skillsand on themechanicsofthesystem was mostly thetraining and resources, forthenew processes. ("keyboarding").Littletimewas spenton conceptualtraining to the of because the plantresistance Also, the design was revisedduring pilot stage new ways of working.Accordingto a BPR teammember, old their on replicating "turf." we wereintruding Theyinsisted [on]their [P]eoplefelt was depenOurprogress resistance. this tooffset thepower We lacked work patterns. tonegotiate. time werevery that on crossfunctional dent consuming agreements was signifand cultureof thepurchasing At DefenseCo, thestructure organization made one function to was restricted the initiative that icantlychanged. Yet, the fact Financial easierthanat FinanceCo and FoodCo. theorganizational changesrelatively thenew expandedjobs and responsibilities. toreflect wererevamped structures reward and as manycontrolswere automated, eliminated were Most supervisory-level jobs to be had that decisions make to were approvedby previously empowered employees a superior.
IT Change
in design and At FinanceCo and FoodCo, the approach to IT was revolutionary in both was DefenseCo's in evolutionary approach evolutionary implementation. and implementation. design At FinanceCo and FoodCo, IT helped to envision new ways of working. At teams that thecustomer ofhostsystems werea number FinanceCo,there management sales and to had to access in orderto respondto customer proposals. requests prepare The new PC-based not customer-based. These legacy systemswere product-based, of to access a number would allow a teammembersimultaneously front-end systems Over time, view of a customer'srelationships. host systemsand build an integrated additionaldistributed customerdatabases and applicationsystemswere to be rolled a new out. For example, order-entry systemwould allow a nonexpert(such as a
101
from thecustomer. The member of a customer team)to takeinformation management process simpleorders. systemwould automatically a standardinformation was to implement At FoodCo, the BPR initiative system and decision was to pushinformation setofplants.The system across a heterogeneous of plantinformation integration makingdown to theplantsas well as to allow better IT business proTo materializethe cost savings from investments, at headquarters. and standardized. cesses would have to be streamlined had inspiredthe Similarly,at DefenseCo, the knowledgeof available technology A elaborated: initiative. BPR manager that a purchasing had described which saw an article Thepurchasing system manager Themanager conatanother andinstalled beendeveloped company. bya consultant wouldimprove the thesystem convinced that further andbecome theconsultant tacted wouldalso equipthedepartment Thesolution thedepartment. within flow ofwork basedsystems. tohost couldbe usedas front-ends that Macintosh with computers None of the initiatives, however,adopted the IT revolutionary change tactic,the learned At FinanceCo, thepilotteams first in implementation. "all-at-once"strategy overa three-year wereintroduced and applications newroles;thenew IT platform their the new time to the lead reflected The systems.At FoodCo, a develop delay period.
technicalsystem changes. precededthesocial-system At DefenseCo, the process resembledone of gradualadaptationof the systemand were of thetechnology roles. The designand implementation thenew organizational came up with a conceptual design to which iterative.In stage one, the consultant workedwithfront-line DefenseCo' s management agreed.In stagetwo,theconsultant and area to designthe finalroles the purchasing system.In the first employees from wereasked remained buyersand planners unchanged;however, release,thejobs/roles IT capabilenhanced and roles The new on their to trainone another jobs. respective in multiplestages. itieswere introduced to pilots and All BPR efforts experiencedproblemsscaling up fromprototyping were fundamentally The IT departments full-scale implementation. challenged in IT the and FinanceCo At both initiatives. the FoodCo, department's supporting new The in host-based was computer-basedsystem was a systems. competency FinanceCo hired IT to the unfamiliar distributed organization. systemon a platform in new development new IT personnelas well as training manyof its existingstaff notIT personnel, ofplantmanagers, At FoodCo, a groupcomprised toolsand methods. and the new with was charged processes. Yet, the system,roles, implementing berequiredclose cooperationand coordination(i.e., partnership) implementation IT group. tweentheplantsand thedivision's centralized was based chosen the at DefenseCo, department bythepurchasing system Similarly, The iterative with. no had IT the on a platform development experience group skillsand knowledgewere tothem.The IT department's approachwas also unfamiliar transaction-based focused on on-linemainframe sysapplicationsand on traditional tems developmentmethodologies.Their limitedpersonal-computer knowledgewas An information on Macintosh. not on theIBM typeofequipment, technology manager noted:
102
STODDARD
AND JARVENPAA
The consultant'sproposal threatened our fortitude. The iterative developmentprocess had been told. People keptasking me, "How could was not in sync withwhatour staff it be OK forthe user to see the applicationbeforeitwas done?"
ofInitiatives Status
were at the followingstages: DefenseCo's At the end of 1993, the threeinitiatives were was successfully initiative completedin 1992; theFoodCo andFinanceCo efforts in themidstof pilotand fieldimplementation phases. At FoodCo and FinanceCo, the AtFoodCo, thesecond release had slowed down of considerably. pace implementation scheduledforFall 1993 was rescheduledto Spring 1994. The of thesysteminitially accrued from on hold untiltheoperationalbenefits release was puttemporarily third thesecond release were known.
ofFindings Discussion
Our proposition was that accomplishing radical change requiresrevolutionary change tactics: the more radical the change outcomes (see figure3), the more and described initiatives thetactics.We discussed threereengineering revolutionary used revolutionary and how they whether changetactics.None ofthecases subscribed tactics. to revolutionary religiously in tactics were used more in design than in implementation The revolutionary the two projects with the most radical planned outcomes. The projects exercised an evolutionaryapproach to thepilot and implementation phases. For example, at as the new process and discretion to when was the FoodCo, given plant manager teams at systemwould be implementedin a particularplant. The implementation and fewer bothFoodCo and FinanceCo included increasingnumbersofpart-timers consultantsthan in the design teams. One manager at FoodCo remarkedon the pace, thelonger tend tolosemomentum new.Longinitiatives Thisis really always nothing initiatives. dollars tend togo for "better" arearound. Scarcecorporate newer, they They are manyreasonswhyFinanceCo and FoodCo did notexerciserevolutionary whereas DefenseCo did. Here we speculate on a few tactics in implementation, involvethesize of theinitiatives, seniormanagement motivation, reasons,including set of reasonsrelateto thebenefits and lead timesforIT development. Another ment, thataccrue from theuse of evolutionary tactics. The narrow scope of the DefenseCo initiativeappeared to facilitateits use of the financialand humancosts and risksof the tactics.In large efforts, revolutionary be tactics to revolutionary appear unpalatable.For example,the largerthe initiative, themorededicatedfull-time laborpoweris needed. However,itis difficult to sustain members.Several managersremarked on how restructuring large teams of full-time teams' efforts. and reorganizations Noted one: easily undermined
103
Radical Change
Energy for
Revolutionary ' TacticsUsed '
' '^
Evolutionary TacticsUsed
Design
ProjectPhase
Pilot
Implementation
and Evolutionary Tactics Figure 3. Use of Revolutionary The toughest thingis to leave theteam alone. In a changingenvironment, you are conand regrouping. It is tempting to regrouptheteam as well. This stantly restructuring sets theteam back.
tacticsappearedto requirea truecrisisin an organization. The use of revolutionary to communicatean anticipatedcrisis. FoodCo and FinanceCo It was not sufficient but neitherwas in a true financial crisis. By experienced declining profitability, contrast,DefenseCo's survival was a daily topic in managementand employee
discussions. tacticsalso required activetop-management involvement. The use of revolutionary team The championhad to be personallyinvolvedin thedesign and implementation as and and had to serve referee. the cheerleader, coach, activities, Keeping sponsor thegreater thescope andplanned and championintact appearedtobe morechallenging Later,the initiative's depthof change. For example, at FoodCo, the sponsorretired. was and further from the activitiesof away stepped day-to-day champion promoted The team began to feel detached fromthe organization'sleadership. the initiative. Withoutstrongand visible managementsupport,the team migratedtoward more tactics. comfortable evolutionary IT was a critical enablerofnew visionsand designsin all threeinitiatives, Although theabsence of needed IT capabilitiesand skillssettheinitiatives in back, particularly andpoorlydefined thecase ofFinanceCo. Poor infrastructure dataarchitectures meant thatsignificant resourceshad to be committed to accomplish applicationsthatsupporteda process perspective.This meantthata simultaneouschange of technology could notoccur.At FoodCo, a package was purchasedthat and social systems allowed the "technical-system-first" approach. However, this approach lost the synergistic benefits of implementing thesocial and technicalchangestogether. There were also many benefits thataccrued fromthe use of evolutionary tactics.
104
STODDARD
AND JARVENPAA
tactic to communication.All projects None of the projects used a revolutionary Some managersfeltthatsecrecy around initiatives practicedopen communication. early on would have led to even more resistanceand reduced potential"buy-in"in implementation. conseresultedin some positive unanticipated In addition,broad communication on their the to remarked: "People begin implement changes quences. One manager Broad communicationalso own, withoutbeing part of the formalchange effort." in when theoriginalreengineering to and new to step sponsors champions helped get attention. their leaders began to redirect to a we studiedsuggestthateffectively communicating Yet, the threeinitiatives received initiatives broad audience was a major challenge. All threereengineering was necessarythanhad been done to keep feedbackthatmuchmorecommunication One leadercommented: abreastoftheprogress. therestoftheorganization sufficiently triofcommunication theamount You alwaysunderestimate youhavetodo. Always at the is needed communication Most takes. level, think it what management you ple toseizethe is much linegroup Thefront themiddle quicker management. particularly opportunity. and "out-of-the-box" Flexible milestonesappeared to increasecreativity thinking. the to micro-manage tendency They were also seen to decrease seniormanagement's thantacticalobjectives.The lack of rigid rather team,to focus theteam on strategic to those not milestonesalso helped the teams to spend more time communicating involvedwhathad been accomplishedso far. directly take advantageof new business did theorganization In none of the BPR initiatives So-called "greenfleld"imlocations. or new facilities, newly opened opportunities, than"reenginrather business a new in means engaging "engineering" plementation the firms had the of None business. an existing optionto divest eering"or"renovating" business wholesale and investin a new one. One executiveremarked: current their andnewentrenewbusiness means toreengineering To usethecleanslateapproach ventures. ofnewentrepreneurial areintolerant boards corporate yetmost preneurs;
Conclusion
Our analysis of three reenginerring initiatives suggests thatBPR does not always resultin radical change in a shortperiod of time.Althoughthe FoodCo and had radicalobjectives,theprogressslowed down in implemenFinanceCo initiatives tacticswere used. None of theprojectsused a "clean slate," or tationas evolutionary of the current The findings of studygo counterto type implementation. greenfield, of reengineering: Hammer's definition we ofbusiness a quickdefinition asksus for Whensomeone reengineering, process exists or with what over."Itdoesn't meantinkering itmeans already "starting saythat about intact. It isn't that leave basic structures incremental making changes making - jury-rigging Itdoes mean work better. so that fixes they existing systems patchwork to atthework afresh andlooking required procedures abandoning long-established valuetothecustomer. anddeliver a company's orservice create product
105
can deliverradical In other words,ouranalysissuggeststhat although reengineering approach to change. Moredesigns,it does notnecessarilypromisea revolutionary notbe feasiblegiventhe riskand cost of over,a revolutionary change process might via an evolutionary tactics. Sustainable incrementalimprovement revolutionary be should sometimes what expect as success from companies change process might and change management tacticsof BPR. Companies need to tailorthe expectations and available implementation time. BPR to the initiative'sscope, depth, case The current are,ofcourse,highly Theyarebased on three preliminary. findings to with different motivations initiatives not be The studies. may generalizable findings to replicateand expand on the current and contexts.We invite otherresearchers to managingchange in BPR. BPR We also call formoreresearchattention findings. thosenew Itis aboutimplementing new ways ofworking. is notjust aboutenvisioning for successful factors the on the needed contingency ways. Work is particularly of BPR change. Such workshouldtake multipleviewpoints, including management of assess theriskpropensity workgroup,and individual.One might theorganization, and tacticsin implementation BPR championswho are willingto use revolutionary compare theirattitudesto change with an organization's overall climate toward muchworkremainson developingmeasuresto assess themagnichange. Similarly, tude of change accomplishedin processes,behaviors,values, and so on. The role of IT researchers in BPR needs clarification. information mightaddressthe technology BPR initiatives. to must IT internal that transformation undergo support groups REFERENCES
Work.Alexandria,VA: Miles River Press, 1984. 1. Adams, J.D. Transforming observationsof CT evidence from 2. Barley,S.R. Technologyas an occasion forstructure: 31 Science Quarterly, Administrative scannersand the social orderof radiologydepartments. (1986), 78-108. formanagingIT-enabled change. Sloan 3. Benjamin,R.I., and Levinson, E. A framework ManagementReview (Summer 1993), 23-33. the problem and performance: 4. Damanpour,F., and Evan, W. Organizationalinnovation 29 (1984), 329-409. Science Quarterly, of organizationallag. Administrative 5. Davenport,T. Process Innovation.Boston: HarvardBusiness School Press, 1993. the threephases of business Transformation. 6. Davidson, W.H. Beyond re-engineering: IBM Systems Journal,32, 1 (1993), 65-79. to phyletic 7. Eldredge,N., and Gould, S. J.Punctuated gradualism. equilibria:an alternative In Models in Paleobiology. San Francisco: Freeman,Cooper, 1972. ot thepunctuated a multilevel 8. Gersick,C. J.G.Revolutionary exploration changetheories: 10-36. 1 16, Review, (1991), equilibriumparadigm.AcademyofManagement B.B. TheInformation 9. Gibson, CF., and Jackson, LexingtonMA: Lexington Imperative. Books, 1987. 10. Hall, G.; Rosenthal,J.; and Wade, J. How to make reengineenng reallywork.Harvard Business Review (November-December 1993), 119-131. obliterate. Harvard Business Review 11. Hammer.M. Reengineenngwork:don t automate, (July-August1990), 104-112. 12. Hammer, M., and Champy,J.ReengineenngtheCorporation.New York: HarperCollins, 1993. 13. HarvardBusiness School. Taco Bell. Case studyNo. 692-058, Boston, 1992. T. The Challenge of Organizational Change. New 14. Kanter,R.M.; Stein,B.A.; and Jick, York: The Free Press, 1992.
106
15. Kilmann,R.H., and Covin, T.J. Corporate Transformation: Revitalizing Organizations World.San Franscisco: Jossey-Bass,1988. for a Competitive 16. King, J.,and Konsynski,B. Singapore TradeNet: a tale of one city. HarvardBusiness School, 9-191-009, June1990. as mutualadaptationof technologyand organizaD. Implementation 17. Leonard-Barton, tion.Research Policy, 77(1 988), 25 1-267. in group dynamics:concept,method,and realityin social science. 18. Lewin, . Frontiers Human Relations (1957), 5-42. all at once: worklifeand 19. Liker,J.;Roitman,D.B.; and Roskies, E. Changingeverything 29-47. Review Sloan (Summer 1987), Management technologicalchange. ofnonequihbnumtheory 20. Loye, D., and Eisler,R. Chaos and transformation: implications forsocial science and society.Behavioral Science, 32 (1987), 53-65. and organizational 2 1. Markus,M.L., and Robey, D. Information change: causal technology and research.ManagementScience, 34, 5 (May 1988), 583-598. structure in theory frame 22. Nadler,D. A. Organizational bending:typesofchangeinthecomplexorganization. In R.H. Kilmannand T.J.Covin (eds.), Corporate Transformation: Organizations Revitalizing World.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,1988. for a Competitive 23. Nutt,P.C. Tactics of implementation. Academyof ManagementJournal,29, 2 (1986), 230-261. and incremental 24. Orlikowski,W.J. CASE tools as organizationalchange: investigating MIS Quarterly,17, 3 (September 1993), 309-340. radical changes in systemsdevelopment. Baxter's N. Beyond business process redesign:refining 25. Short,J.E., and Venkatraman, Sloan ManagementReview (Fall 199 1), 7-2 1. business network. 26. Stoddard,D., and McFarlan, W. Otisline (A). HarvardBusiness School, 9-186-304, 1986. 27. Tushman,M.L.; Newman,W.H.; and Romanelli,E. Convergenceand upheaval: managevolution.CaliforniaManagementReview,29, 1 ( 1986), pace oforganizational ingtheunsteady 29-44. model of 28. Tushman, M., and Romanelli, E. Organizationalevolution:a metamorphosis In L. Cumminsand B. Staw (eds.), Research in Organizational convergenceand reorientation. Behavior,vol. 7. Greenwich,CT: JAI Press, 1985, pp. 171-222. to business scope automation from N. IT-enabledbusinesstransformation 29. Venkatraman, Sloan ManagementReview (Winter1994), 73-88. redefinition.
Guide AppendixA: Interview

and ingeneral interviewed oftheperson were theresponsibilities 1. What being initiative? interms ofthecurrent reengineering was itstarted? started? 2. How didreengineering Why get initiative? on the consultants used 3. How were for do togetready 4. What didtheorganization reengineering? When was theteamformed? launched? 5. When didtheinitiative formally get oftheinitiative? events andmilestones 6. What havebeenthemajor areforthcoming? 7. What events andmilestones atthe endofdesign, oftheinitiative atthe were the 8. What beginning, objectives andcommunicated? established attheendofpilot? Howwere theobjectives Whowas 9. Whowas involved intheinitiative? Werethey full-time/part-time? excluded? 10. Whowasthesponsor What wasthesponsor's oftheinitiative? background? theinitiative? What didthey do for backWhatwas thechampion's 11. Who was thechampion of theinitiative?
107
12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.
ground?Whatdid theydo forthe initiative? to those not involved?When did the communicated How was the initiative and medium? take place? Whatwas theform communication have? Were theyflexibleor rigid? did theinitiative Whattypeof milestones was provided? Whattypeof training for behaviorand attitude theorganization Whatwas done to prepare changes? How has theorganization changedto accommodatethenew processes? and information What was therole of IS function applications? systems How else has thechange been managed on theinitiative? theinitiative? What were themain lessons from

New Marketing40398154

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

New Marketing40398154

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Business Process Redesign: Tactics for Managing Radical Change Author(s): Donna B. Stoddard and Sirkka L.

BusinessProcessRedesign: TacticsforManagingRadical Change

STODDARD AND JARVENPAA

BUSINESS PROCESS REDESIGN

Hammerand Champy [12] note: //,

theDegreeofPlanned Outcomes: Change Determining Change

ofChange Planned Depth

STODDARD AND JARVENPAA

ofChange theTactics Process: Determining Change

BUSINESS PROCESS REDESIGN

STODDARD AND JARVENPAA

and Incremental pain forrisk benefit improvement Little

BUSINESS PROCESS REDESIGN

Tactics andRevolutionary Change Evolutionary

STODDARD AND JARVENPAA

BUSINESS PROCESS REDESIGN

Theories: andRevolutionary Table 1 Evolutionary Change ofTactics A Comparison

Communication Motivation Milestones Culture/structure change

Broadlycommunicated plans Self-improvement Flexible Adapt to existing employees

STODDARD AND JARVENPAA

on Three Initiatives Background Reengineering

Scope ofBPR Initiatives

Planned ofBPR Initiatives Depth

BUSINESS PROCESS REDESIGN

Overview ofReengineering Initiatives 1993 FinanceCo 1993 DefenseCo

Mail orderinsurance. Revenue in excess of $600 million, employs 2,000 people

Information systems changes

Culturalaudit suggested need to change significantly the culture.

Yes Phase 3 Yes

inBPR Initiatives Observed Tactics Change

STODDARD AND JARVENPAA

STODDARD AND JARVENPAA

orDecreaseofRevolutionary inPilot/Implementation Table 5 Increase Tactics to DesignPhase Phase Compared FinanceCo

No change ^ No change No change i ^ I 1?

No change No change No change t ' ' No change

BUSINESS PROCESS REDESIGN

STODDARD AND JARVENPAA

BPR for Motivation

BUSINESS PROCESS REDESIGN

andCulture Structure ofCurrent Change

BUSINESS PROCESS REDESIGN

BUSINESS PROCESS REDESIGN

Revolutionary ' TacticsUsed '

BUSINESS PROCESS REDESIGN

STODDARD AND JARVENPAA

Guide AppendixA: Interview

BUSINESS PROCESS REDESIGN

12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen