new marketing40398154

7/29/2019 New Marketing40398154

1/28

Business Process Redesign: Tactics for Managing Radical Change

Author(s): Donna B. Stoddard and Sirkka L. JarvenpaaReviewed work(s):Source: Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 12, No. 1 (Summer, 1995), pp. 81-107Published 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 [email protected].

.

M.E. Sharpe, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toJournal 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 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=meshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40398154?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40398154?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mes

7/29/2019 New Marketing40398154

2/28

BusinessProcessRedesign:TacticsforManagingRadicalChangeDONNAB. STODDARD AND SIRKKA L. JARVENPAADonna B. Stoddard has beenan Assistant rofessorntheHarvardBusinessSchoolManagement nformationystems rea since 1991. She teaches n thefirst earoftheM.B.A. program nd as partof thefaculty orthe executiveeducation courseentitledManagingthe nformationystemsResource. Her research ocuses on man-agingchange n businessprocessredesign.SlRKKAL. JARVENPAAs an Associate Professor f Information ystemsat theUniversity f Texas at Austin.She servedas a Marvin Bower Fellow at HarvardBusiness School during hecalendaryearof 1994. Dr.Jarvenpaa as published verthirtyrticles nda number f case studies nacademicandpractitionerournals.Hercurrent esearchprojectsfocus on global informationechnology, lectronic om-merce,and theuse of informationechnologyn radicalorganizational ransforma-tions.Abstract: Bydefinition,usinessprocessredesignBPR) representsadicalchangeintoday'sbureaucratic unctionallytructuredndmanaged organizations. he radi-cal change theorists redict hatto accomplishradical change requiresthe use ofrevolutionary hange tactics.We proposethat s the "radicalness"of theplannedchange ncreases,morerevolutionaryhangetactics re used. We analyzethechangetactics fthree rganizations'BPR initiatives o understand hether ndhow revolu-tionary acticswere used. The initiatives vinced a varied amountof revolutionarytacticsdepending nthe cope anddepth fplanned hange.The use ofrevolutionarytactics lso variedby hephaseof he nitiatives. hefrequencyfrevolutionaryacticswas highest n theearly phases of the nitiatives nd decreasedas they pproachedimplementation.We explorethereasons forreduceddeployment f revolutionarytactics.We concludeby implications oBPR practice nd research.Key words and phrases: businessprocessredesign, ase study, hangemanage-ment,evolutionary actics, mplementation hases, radical change, revolutionarytactics.

Many organizations are in the midst of planned revolutions o respond o theturbulentusiness nvironment.rganizationshat rosperednthe1 80s as contrac-tors o theU.S. militaryre a goodcase inpoint.Manyofthesefirms retransformingAcknowledgment:hisworkwasfundedyHarvard usiness choolDivision fResearchndErnstndYoungCenter or usinessnnovation.

JournalfManagementnformationystemsSummer995,Vol. 12,No. 1 pp.81-107

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

7/29/2019 New Marketing40398154

3/28

82 STODDARD AND JARVENPAA

themselves nto ommercial ompetitors. heyareredefiningheir roducts, eople,structures,ystems, nd culture o compete nthe commercial ector.For example,over 50 percent ftherevenue fRockwell nternationalame fromhedefense ectorinthe ate1 80s; in1 93 only ome 20percent ame fromhat ector. heorganizationhas undertakenmassive conversion f notonly tsassets,butalso itsculture,workprocesses,thought atterns,nd so on,to become a major player ntelecommunica-tions, utomobilepartsmanufacturing,actoryutomation,nd commercial lectron-ics. Rockwell s accomplishing o-calledorganizational ransformation"Profoundfundamentalhanges nthoughtndactions,which reate n rreversibleiscontinuityin theexperience f a system" 1,p. 278].Business process redesign BPR), also known as reengineering12] or processinnovation 5], is offered s an enabler of organizational ransformation6, 29].Organizations mbrace BPR approachwhen hey elievethat radical mprovementcan be achievedby marryingusinessprocess,organizationtructure,nd IT change.Former efense ontractorsndtraditionalommercial ector ompanies, uch s IBMCreditCorporation nd Ford [12], alike have embracedBPR to speed up slow or"broken"businessprocesses.Others, uch as Taco Bell [13],have embracedBPR toenablethe redefinitionf their usiness.Informationechnology s usuallya necessarybut nsufficientactorn achievingbusinessprocessredesign. T has been described s both a strategic atalyst nd anenablerof BPR [5, 12]. Yet, the absence of needed IT capabilitiescan be a majorinhibitoro BPR. Forexample,a managerdescribedhow the dataarchitecturehatcompany'sLondonofficehad established n the ate 1980smade itrelatively asytodevelopnew applications o support processthathad beenredesigned. he lack ofsucha well-defined ataarchitecturen thefirm'sU.S. operationmeant hat ignifi-cantlymoreresourceshad to be committed o accomplishapplicationsof similarscope.A systems lanning rdata-modeling rojectmay provide hegenesisforBPR astheorganizationwakesupto thefact hat planning rocess hat ocuses ntechnologymaynot deliver he businesssolutions t needs. Forexample,whenasked whyBPRhad become a major agenda item,thechief nformation fficerCIO) of a majorinsurance ompanynoted:Inthe ate1980s, began o ook thow echnologyas inkedoour verall orpo-rate trategy.tried o ssesshownew pplicationsmpactedhe nterprisemy ntu-itionwasthatwe were nvestinglotbutnot ettinghe esired roductivity.s Ibegan ofocus nwhatwe were oing,twas clear hat, enerally,edidnot hangethe rocesseshatwere eing utomated.ather, e took ophisticatedpplicationsand ayeredhem nto n oldorganization.began oenvision need oreengineer.Further,n llofouryears ffocus n the echnology,twas as ifwehadbeen ook-ing hroughhewrongnd f he elescope.

Reengineerings reportedlyadical change."Process nnovation nvolves teppingback from processto inquire s to its overall businessobjective, nd then ffectingcreative nd radicalchangeto realizeorders-of-magnitudemprovementsnthewaythat bjective s accomplished" 5, p. 1 ]. Intheir ook,Reengineering heCorpora-


7/29/2019 New Marketing40398154

4/28

BUSINESS PROCESS REDESIGN 83

//,ammer ndChampy 12] note:Reengineering an't be carried ut n small and cautioussteps. t s an all-or-nothingproposition hat roducesdramatically mpressive esults.Mostcompanieshave nochoice buttomuster hecourageto do it. Formany, eengineerings theonlyhope forbreaking wayfrom he neffective,ntiquatedwaysofconducting usiness thatwillotherwise estroy hem.

One managerexplained, BPR is aboutchanging heenginesof flying irplane."BPR is one approach oorganizational ransformation.Is BPR radical hange?What rethenecessary actics oaccomplish adical hange?In thispaper,we contrasthangetactics hat romote adicalchangewith actics hatpromote ncremental hange. We then analyze threeBPR efforts o understandwhether, ow,andwhyrevolutionaryacticswereusedor notused.We concludewithimplications opractice ndresearch.Overall, thethree nitiatives ifferedn terms f thescope and planneddepthofchange.The use ofrevolutionaryacticsvariedacrossthe nitiatives, ut also bythephases ofthe nitiatives. he three ases suggestthatBPR maybe a revolutionaryapproachtodesign.The realization f thedesignmight ake a longtime nd involvean evolutionary pproach.ChangeOutcomes: eterminingheDegree fPlanned hangeThe planned outcomes of change can be described in terms of scope andDEPTH. cope includesthebreadth fchange.Depthinvolvesthenature fchange.Radical change s highon both cope anddepth.ScopeofChangeThe scope of change denotes the organizationalreach of change forexample,whetherhe mpact fchangewill be containedwithin nefunction,neorganization,orwill cutacrossorganizational oundaries 3]. Although PR bydefinition12, 25,29] spansfunctional oundaries, here eemstobe a widedisparityn hownarrowlyor broadlya process is viewed from ne BPR initiative o another this results ndifferingegreesof cross-functionalcope. The much-celebratedord Motor Com-panyaccountspayable BPR projectwas largely imited o one functionalrea ac-counting 1 1 . Bycontrast,BM CreditCorporationollapseda number ffunctionalareaswith tsBPR initiative12]. SingaporeTradenet llustrateshe ransformationfrelationshipscrossa number f trade-relatedoordinating odies [16],Planned epth fChangeThe nature fchange s dependent nthe trategicntentionss well as thecontext fchange [24]. BPR efforts ften tartwiththefollowing ntentions: o dramaticallyreducecost,todramaticallymprove ustomer erviceoremployeequality f ife, rto reinventhe basic rulesof business.Forexample, BM CreditCorporation ought


7/29/2019 New Marketing40398154

5/28


to reducethe turnaroundimefor uotations ocustomers. he focusof ts nitiativewas efficiency,ttemptingo cutcostsbycuttingimeperquotation ndby mprovingthe numberof deals handledwith theexisting taff 12]. At Procter nd Gamble,management opedto increasecustomer erviceeffectiveness hen t workedwithWal-Mart oreengineerheorder-management/inventoryrocessfor ampersdiapers[12]. WhenTaco Bellmanagement ecognized hat heywere nthefast-foodusiness,not n theMexican-foodbusiness,BPR was used to transformheorganizationntothenewlyredefined usiness 13].To transformn organization, deep changemust ccur nthekeybehavior eversof theorganization:obs, skills, tructures,haredvalues,measurementystems, ndinformationechnology10]. The greater heextent fplannedchangeto thechangelevers,thedeepertheplannedchange.For example,Otis Elevator 26] changed tsworkproceduresformanagingservice requests, mployeeroles, culture, T, andmeasurementnd control ystemsn an efforto improve ustomer ervice.BPR is commonlyfacilitated y informationechnology 5, 12]. IT-enabledout-comes, inturn, ave been described n terms forganizational fficiency,ffective-ness,orwhether heapplication ransformsheorganization9]:

Applicationsnthe fficiencyategoryllowusers owork asterndoftentmeasur-ably ower ost.Applicationsnthe ffectivenessategoryllowusers owork etterandoftenoproduce igheruality ork. pplicationsnthe ransformationategorychange he asicways hat eople nddepartmentsorkndmay ven hange hevery aturef he usinessnterprisetself.This classification fchange is consistentwith hedepthofchange.Whentheonlychange lever used is IT (i.e., IT-enabledchange),mereautomation fmanualtasksoccurs,resultingnefficiency ains.Effectiveness,nturn, equires hangesnotonlyin technology, ut also in skills, ob roles,and workflow.Transformationn turnassumes a majorchange n mostofthechange eversof theorganization,ncludingstructure, ulture, nd compensation chemes. Automation s the least deep; thetransformations thedeepestform fchange.Inaddition oBPR accomplishing ross-fiinctionalnd transformationalhanges, tis also expected ochangetheorganization/asi. orexample,Hammer ndChampy[1 ,p. 2 1 ] notethat Twelve months houldbe longenoughfor company omovefrom rticulationfa case for ctiontothe first eleaseof a reengineered rocess."Change rocess: eterminingheTactics fChangeThe pace of change is dependent on the process - that s, tactics,or tech-niques used to encourage an organization'smembersto accept and to enact aproposedchange [23]. A change processthat omplieswithcurrent rganizationalvalues andnorms, kills, tructures,nd incentive ystemss inherentlyvolutionary.Bycontrast,hange hat hallenges r undermineshe tatus uo,creates newvision,and accomplishes fundamental hange in values and norms,workpractices,andstructuress revolutionaryhange [24]. Our basic supposition ormanaging hangein BPR is simple:differentnitiatives equiredifferenthangemanagement actics


7/29/2019 New Marketing40398154

6/28


dependingn he ype f hange. adical hangea transformationalhangen shortperiod f ime) sually ecessitatesevolutionaryhange actics;ikewise,ncremen-tal hange uggestsvolutionaryhange actics.EvolutionaryhangeEvolutionaryhangemodelsssumehathangesadaptedo he ace nd apabilitiesofpeople ndwidespread,requent,nd pen ommunications a key acticoenableincrementalhange7,15,17].Evolutionaryodels lsoassume hathange annotbefully lannedtthe utsetnd hosewhowillbe affectedy he hangemust eadandparticipatenthe hange rocess17].Broadparticipationrom arious evelsusuallymeans hat hepace ofchange s adapted o thecapabilitiesfthe eastchangeablelementrgroupn he rganization.As such, volutionaryhangemodels uggest gradual, taged ociotechnicalchangepproach.he hangeactics erivedromhis iew eflectwo asic ssump-tionsbouthange:1 changeakes ime nd sbest ccomplishedn mallncrementsat time,nd 2) changes a recursivedaptationrocess etweenhe echnologyndtheuser nvironment.lthoughhis ncremental,umulativeiewofchange asalong raditionnvarious acetsf ciencefor xample, iology7]and ocial cience[20]),new heorieshallengehese nderlyingssumptionsf hange.RevolutionaryhangeAccordingoradical hange heoristse.g.,9, 27,28],a fondamentalrganizationchange annot e accomplishediecemeal, radually,rcomfortably.ather,hechangemust nfoldapidly.he reationfnew ormsndprocessesequiresifficultcompact evolutions.lthoughevolutionaryhangeheoriescknowledgehe xis-tence f ncrementalhanges uringeriodsf tabilityi.e., quilibrium),hey rguethatnymajor hange anonly ome s a result frevolutionarypheavali.e., bigbang").In thevocabularyfradical hange heorists,undamentalhange equires deepstructurerparadigm hift hange 8], that s, thebasic assumptions,usinesspractices,ulture,ndorganizationaltructurehange. heexisting eepstructurepersistsnd imitshange uringtable eriods utmust edismantledndreconfig-ured nperiods frevolutionaryhange.Unless hedeepstructures changed,hebehaviorsmigrateacktowardhe tatus uo oncetheformalhange rogramsdeclared o be over.Some evelof dentityrisis, isorder,ndambiguitysuallyprecedes deep tructurehange24].Radicalchangeoutcomesi.e., broad nddeepchanges) equire evolutionarychange rocesses, articularlyhen he ime rames shortseefigure).Thereverseisnot, owever,rue. process anberevolutionaryithouthe utcomesf hangebeing adical8].Radical hangeheoristsave roposednumberf evolutionaryacticso ccom-plish adical hange9,22,27,28].A newvisions needed o freexisting embers


7/29/2019 New Marketing40398154

7/28


ProcessEvolutionary Revolutionary

Incremental Incrementalmprovement Littleenefitor isk nd ainOutcome ContinuousncrementalRamcal ai improvementver long Radicalchan&en shortRamcal ai period periodf imeFigure. ProcessndOutcomefChangeofthe egacies fthepast, llowthem o see alternatives,ndbuild onfidencendcapabilitiesor he uture. ewmanagersreneeded o ccomplishframe-breaking"change. urrentmployeeshould e excluded ecause fcognitive, otivational,and bligationalarrierso hange. xisting anagersnd mployees, anyfwhomare omfortableithhe tatusuo,mayhavedifficultyerformingout-of-the-boxthinking."lso, xistingmployees ay earosing ontrol,pportunities,rpower,andthatheyannotccomplishhenew asks. xistingmployeesmighte furtherconstrainedecause f egionso takeholdersnside nd utsidehe rganizationhopreferhe tatusuo.Tushmant l. [27]foundhatexternallyecruitedxecutivesare hree imesmoreikelyo nitiaterame-breakinghangehan xistingxecutiveteams. rame-breakinghangewascoupledwith EO successionn more han 0percentf he ases."Hallet l [10,p. 124]reportedhatnfour f he ive uccessfulBPR nitiatives,new hiefxecutives ere roughtnbeforerduringhe rojects."Moreover,evolutionaryhangemusttartnpopulationshat re mall nd solatedbeforehe hangesspread urther8]. solationelps he roupvoidhavingts ocusand nergiesilutedy he urroundingnertia.ome xistingrganizationalembersmightlsohaveto be removednorder o communicatehat esistance illnotbetolerated. norganizationhat olds nto tspromisefno ayoffsiolates he asictenet frevolutionaryhange: eoplemustualifyorhange atherhan ave hangeadaptedopeople.Proponentsfrevolutionaryodelsrguehat failure,r crisis,srequiredo etthe tage or evolutionaryhanges. ersick8] similarlyrgues hat eople ppearmost apable f reatingnd cceptingew olutions hen hey ace nsurmountableproblemshat annot e solvedwithhe urrenteepstructure.riseshelpprovidedecisive reaksnsystems'nertiandcantapmajor ources fenergyor reatingthe new rules fortheworkplace. crisis s particularlyecessaryo generatereceptivityochangesna wider opulation.Communicationbout hechange houldbe firstargetedo a smallgroup fgatekeepersnd pread nly fterhe hange as aken hold n hat roup. anter t


7/29/2019 New Marketing40398154

8/28


al. note, Too often, ommunication ranslates nto unilateral irective.Real com-munication equires dialogue amongthedifferenthangemakers" 14].Radical theorists o not refute hatan anticipated risis mightbe a sufficientmotivator or adicalchange.That s,managementan "create crisis" and a senseofurgency o motivate rganizationalmembers ogetonboard with changeprogram[14]. They do, however,caution that"only a farsightedminority f firms nitiateupheavalprior o ncurring erformanceeclines" 27]. Inaddition, he old" organi-zationmighthave to be dismantled nd leftdisorganizedfor ome periodsof timebeforefundamentalhangestakehold.Gersick 8] believesthat uccessful adical hangerequires he reation ftemporalmilestones.Temporalmilestones ccurwhenpeople become acutely ware that hetime s finite ndtheyhave to moveon. She maintains hat forganizationmembers

begin to realize thata particular ra has ended, thenthey may accept thattheapproaches hat heyhadpreviously hosenmight olonger e appropriate. emporalmilestoneshelp to createthe sense of urgency, nd make people reevaluatepastchoices and takenewsteps.EvolutionaryndRevolutionaryhange acticsA comparisonoftheevolutionarynd revolutionaryhangemodels suggests omesimilaritiesnd somemajordifferences. othevolutionaryndrevolutionary odelsadvocatehavingseniorexecutivesupport r sponsorship f any large-scalechangeinitiative.Both argue for clear objectives and vision. However,the revolutionarymodelscall for eadership rom utside heorganization,ndthe volutionarymodelsfor eadership rom heexisting eniormanagement. he evolutionaryactics all forbroadparticipationf the current rocessowners nd contributorsn thedesignandimplementation.herevolutionaryactics all for he xclusionof the urrentrocessowners nd users.Whiletheevolutionarymodelsadvocatebroad,organization-widecommunication,herevolutionary odelssuggestmore selected nd focused, ace-to-face, ne-on-oneommunication.heevolutionary odel dvocates lexiblemilestones;the evolutionaryodel dvocates igidmilestones.heevolutionary odelproposes hatchange anbedriveny desire or elf-improvement;adical hange roposes hat eoplemustbelievecognitivelynd sometimes xperience motionallyhe crisis tateof theorganization.n summary,o accomplishdeep structuralhange,the radicalmodelssuggest hat eoplecannotbe assumed obe capableofchange;rather,heyhave tobequalified or hange.The evolutionary odels rguefor dapting hange opeople.IT andModelsofChangeThe revolutionaryndevolutionary erspectives lso prescribe ifferentequencingoftechnology hanges.Under volutionary hange, gradually taged ociotechnicalchangeoccurs.Either social-system-r a technical-system-irsttrategys followed.Revolutionary hange assumes simultaneous hange of bothtechnicaland socialsystemsi.e., the ll-at-once trategy).


7/29/2019 New Marketing40398154

9/28


Liker et al. suggestfour alternative pproachesto managing technologypacedchangebased on thepace and scope ofsociotechnical hange:all-at-once, echnical-system-first,ocial-system-first,rgradually taged ociotechnical hange 19]. Theall-at-once trategyssumesthat norganizationwouldattempto makerapid, adicalchange in its technical nd social systems oncurrently.he technical-system-firstapproach suggests moregradualchange; IT changesare expectedto inducesocialchanges. The social-system-firstpproachcalls for"gettingyourhouse in order"beforemakingmajor echnological hanges. t assumedunfreezingndchanging 18]the social system efore nstalling newtechnology.Studiesonthe mplementationfproductionechnologies nderscoren nteractive,staged approachto change [17]. Highlysuccessfultechnology ransfers abe beenfound o require he mutual daptation f theorganization nd technology.Changeemerged lowlyand gradually s largeand small recursive yclesbridged hegapsandmisalignments etween echnologyndtherest ftheorganization.Muchof thischangeprocesscould nothave beenplanned n thebeginning.Several othersdescribe technology-basedchange as an emergentprocess: theusers and consequences of information echnologyemerge unpredictablyfromcomplex social interactions 21]. For example, a studyon the ntroduction f CTscanners in radiologydescribeshow changes to the structure f theradiologists'work emergedunplannedover timefrom heir nteractionswiththe technology[2]. In a studyof eighty-five ublic libraries,the highest-performingibrariesimplemented balanced level of bothtechnological and organizationalchangesrather hanone orthe other 4]. However,thesequencingof these nnovations lsoaffected erformance. ibraries hat doptedorganizational nnovations irstwereultimately he bestperformers.Table 1contrasts hechangetacticsfor heevolutionaryndrevolutionaryhangemodels n seven areas: leadership, mployee nvolvement,he trategyor ommuni-cation, hemotivation orBPR, milestones, rganizationtructure/culturend IT. Wenext nalyzetheuse and more mportantlyhecontext f use of therevolutionaryndevolutionaryhange actics nthree PR initiatives.We start youtliningheresearchapproach.Research pproachA case study method was deployed explore how and whydifferenthangemanagementacticswere used.A multiple-case esign nvolved hree PR initiativesinthreedifferentompanies.The three ases varied n terms ftheexpectedchangeoutcomes.The BPR initiativewas theunit fanalysis.A BPR initiative ouldbe oneprojector a set of nterrelatedrojects.The first uthor's organizationhad an establishedrelationshipwiththe threecompaniesresulting rom reviousresearch nd educational ctivities.At the imeofthe study, ne of the BPR initiatives ad been completed nd hence representedretrospectivease study. he other wo nitiatives ere n thephasesofpilot nd nitialfield mplementation.ence,thedesignphases representedetrospectiveesearch; he


7/29/2019 New Marketing40398154

10/28


Table1 EvolutionaryndRevolutionaryhange heories:A ComparisonfTacticsEvolutionary Revolutionary

Leadership Use insiders Use outsidersEmployee Use currentmanagers and Exclude currentmanagersinvolvement employees who are and employees where possi-representative fthe ble. Involveonly"best of thepopulationofemployees breed" and those who aredissatisfiedwith hestatusquo. Employ employeesfull-time.solate thereengineering eamCommunication Broadlycommunicated One-on-one communicationplans tokeystakeholders onlyMotivation Self-improvement Crisisor failureMilestones Flexible FirmCulture/structure Adaptto existing Qualify mployees forchange employees change who fitwithnewculture nd organizationalstructureITchange Process or social system Simultaneous change offirst. lternatively,radual, technology nd socialstaged implementationf systemstechnology nd socialsystems

pilot ndimplementationhasesrepresentedoncurrentatacollectionnvolvingcontact etweenhe esearchernd he rganizationveryhreeofivemonthsveran eighteen-monthtudy eriod.Bothresearchersora researchernda researchassistant) erepresentn all key nterviews,llowing ross-checkingffacts ndimpressions.Ineach asestudy,etrospectiveatawere ollectednwhat racticesndorgani-zational nterventionsriggeredheorganizationo initiatehe efforts.he datacollectionnvolved rimarilyemistructurednterviewsith pen-endeduestions.Sitevisitswere upplementedithelephonenterviews.n nterviewuidewasusedinmost f he nterviewsseeappendix).he numberfpeople ntervieweder asestudy aried romightotwenty-five;ostweremanagersnd mployeesnvolvedin theBPR initiative.n all cases,thebusiness rocess wner,he T director,ndmembersftheBPRteamwere nterviewed.hecompanyxecutivemanagementwas interviewedntwocompanies. he intervieweesere upplementedith hereviewsfmemos ndprojecteportsndobservationsfnew echnologyndworkprocedures.


7/29/2019 New Marketing40398154

11/28


BackgroundnThreeReengineeringnitiativesTable 2 outlines the organizational context of the initiatives and describestheplanned hanges ntasks, tructure,ystems,nd culture tthe hree rganizations:FinanceCo, DefenseCo,andFoodCo.FinanceCo s a largefinancial ervices ompany. ne of themaindivisions f thefirmbeganBPR in ate1 80swith nattemptotransformhe ompany rom massmarketeroa personalizedervices ompany. he division adexperiencedecliningmarginsecauseofproblems ith ersistencendhigherosts oacquire ustomers.heBPR initiativeasaimed oresultnsignificantmprovementsnoverall rofitabilityndgrowth.DefenseCo was a largemanufacturerf industrial quipment.The BPR initiativeoccurred n the largestbusinessthatprimarilyold military quipment o the U.S.government. ecause of therestructuringnd thedownsizingof the U.S. defenseindustry,hecompanyfacedthechallengeofmaintaining profitable ivisionwithsignificant eductionn demand.Cost cutting nddownsizinghad become the orderoftheday.The newcompetitivenvironmentadalready esultednmajor ycle-timereduction n submittingroposalsto thegovernment rom ix to twelvemonths othreemonths. urther,he timebetween he awardofthemanufacturingontract othedelivery f theequipmentwas cutfromwenty-fouronths o twelve.All thisputpressure npurchasing o reduce tscycletime ndhand-offs.FoodCo was a largefoodretailer ndmanufacturer.he BPR effort as undertakeninthemanufacturingnitofthefirm hathad nearlyfortymanufacturinglantsallacross the United States. The head of the unithad previously mplemented nintegratedmanualmanufacturingystem n one oftheplants n the 1960s and nowenvisioned mplementingstandardomputer-based RPII systemnall oftheplantsin order oenhanceeach individual lant'seffectiveness,nhanceoverall ontrol, ndallow theunit o leverage tssize with ustomers ndsuppliers.ScopeofBPR InitiativesThescope ofBPR varied crossthe hreenitiatives. tFinanceCo, he cope includedtheentire rganization f more han ,000people. The initiative as expected o takeseven to tenyears. n 1992,FinanceCo had overtwenty PR implementationeamsinprogress.nearly1 93 theyhadeight eams nprogress nd nthe ummer f1 93six teams. AtFoodCo, mostof themanufacturingnit's3,500 employeeswould beaffected. he initiative as estimated o cost$40million,with avingsof$200 millionover tenyears.The initiativewas expected o take 6.5 years ocomplete.At Defense-Co, thescope was limited othepurchasing epartmentf 165 people; the nitiativewas completed nthreeyearsfrom ts nceptionsee figure ).Planned epth fBPRInitiativesThe mostradical outcomesweresought fter tFinanceCo,followedbyFoodCo. AtFinanceCo, theBPR was initiated s a result fredefininghecompany's strategy;


7/29/2019 New Marketing40398154

12/28


Table2 Overview fReengineeringnitiativesFinanceCo 93 DefenseCo 93 FoodCo1 93

Company context Mail order nsurance. Industrialquipment Food manufacturerRevenue in excess manufacturer hose with evenue inex-of$600 million, defense segment cess of$1 5 billionemploys2,000 people had revenue of and 3,500 employeesapproximately 1 3billionReengineering Sought to transform Refinedwork n the Implementation f aninitiativeescription company. Eight o purchasingarea in MRPII system infortytenreengineering one ofthecompanies plants ranging rominitiatives nderway, in the defense bakeries and milk-Three initiatives systemssegment. processing plantsto

were testingnew nonfoodplants,ways ofdoingbusi-ness. The otherswere reengineeringworkflow nopera-tionsareas.Changes totasks Jobs tobe completelyJobswere completelyJobs, processes,redefined.A process- redefined s buyer and informationlowbased visionand a and plannerposition tobe redefined ndnew strategicbusi- was combined into standardized acrossness modelwere commodity theplants,developed for he administratorole,

company.Structuralhanges Moving oward Eliminated number Headquarters f nc-management ofmiddle-manager tionsredefined othrough eam positions. enablestructure nd a flatter implementation,organization.Information Movingfrommain- InstalledMacintosh To replace threePC-systemschanges frame ystems and computers n an envi- based manufacturingtoward client- ronment hathad tra- control ystemsserver/Windows ditionally een only plantshad imple-environment. IBM.Also, intro- mented nnonstan-duced prototyping dardways. Installingwithusers in an envi- MRPII and IBMronmentmbracing AS400 computers,traditionalystems newtechnologies fordevelopment ife- thecompany,cycle approach to de-velopment.Cultural hanges Cultural uditsug- A moreparticipative Manyplant employ-gested need to culturewas intro- ees would have to in-significantlyhange duced as employees terfacewiththeculture. were involved nthe computersfor hefirstdesign and develop- time. nterdepend-

mentof the new sys- ence between planttern. departmentswould in-crease dramatically.


7/29/2019 New Marketing40398154

13/28


Scope ofChangeFunctional Cross-functional Organization-wide

Efficiency DerfenseCoPlannedDepthof Effectiveness FoodCoChange

Transformation Finance o

Figure . Planned utcomes: ComparisonfCasesmanagementought o transformheorganization, hichwas losingmarkethare ndexperiencing ecliningprofitability.he functionalworkprocesses,structures,ndvalues cementedwith nformationechnologywould have tobe changedto enable anewbusiness trategy. inanceCoexpectedboth o offer ew and nnovative roductsand to be able to supportts customersn newand innovativeways.Forexample,thecustomerwould be servedbya dedicated rossfiinctionaleam hat andledboth alesand servicetransactions or hecompany'svariedproducts.AtDefenseCo,theBPR initiative asto mprove heflow fworkwhiledoingmorewith ess. The redesignedprocesswas also expectedto provide managementwithbettermetrics o measure how well the departmentwas doing. Customers e.g.,manufacturing) ad traditionally iewed the service evel of thepurchasing epart-ment s poor.The department as inundatedwithpaper,and it was not unusualforpurchase rders o bemisplacedortoget ost nsomeone's in-basket. he BPR effortwas to moveawayfrom functional iew to a processview. Two ob categorieswouldbe collapsed toone and one-third f thedepartment'staffwouldbe eliminated.At FoodCo, theexpectationswere more of effectiveness,ollowedby efficiency.The seniorvicepresident ormanufacturingxplained,

For numberfyears have nvisionedmplementingstandardomputer-basedys-temn ll ofourfacilities,hatwouldnot nly nhance ur bilityomanagendivid-ualplants utwould rovidehe nformatione need o everageur ize whenwedealwithuppliersnd ustomers.hechallengehatweface swetryo ccomplishthis sthathere revast ifferencesnthe haracteristicsnd ife ycles fthe rod-ucts roducednour 0plants. et, fweare uccessfult mplementingstandardprocessnd ystem,he pportunitysenormous.Inthe ate 1 80s thehead ofthebusinessunithadestablished team ocompare heunit's manufacturing ystemswith those of competitors.The team found thatFoodCo's systems ndprocesseswerehighly nadequate.Hence, theneed forBPR


7/29/2019 New Marketing40398154

14/28

BUSINESS ROCESS EDESIGN93Table 3 Hammer'sReengineering rinciples:MappingofThreeCases

FinanceCo DefenseCo FoodCoOrganize around outcomes not Yes Yes NotasksHave those who use the output f Yes Somewhat Somewhattheprocess performheprocessSubsume information-processing Yes Yes Yeswork nto he real work hatpro-duces the informationTreatgeographicallydispersed re- Yessources as though heywere cen-tralizedCapture workonce and at the Yes NA YessourceLinkparallel activities nstead of n- Yes Yes Phase 3tegrating heir esultsPut thedecision pointwhere the Yes Yes Yeswork s performed nd buildcontrolinto heprocessAdapted rom ammer11]and HammerndChampy 12].was developedbased onseniormanagement's ision ndtheknowledge fwhatotherorganizations ad been able to accomplishas a result fredefiningheirprocesses.ManagementexpectedtheBPR to yieldmajor savingsfrom educedplant osses,reducedper-unit urchasing osts, nventory alue reduction, otential ncreases npublicsales, and overall mprovementsnproductivity.therbenefitswereexpectedfrombetter-organizednformation,mprovedcustomer ervice, mprovedperfor-mance visibility, vailabilityof instant tandard-based roductivityariances, m-provedcosting/pricing,ndfull ntegrationfproduct ndbusiness functions.In all three nitiatives,he firm'smanagement elieved that heyhad undertakenBPR. Table 3 mapsthethree nitiativeso Hammer's [11,12] principles fBPR. Intwo oftheorganizations,managementalled the nitiatives usinessprocessreengin-eering; nthe hird ase, theorganization eferredo the nitiatives businessprocessoptimization.n thenext ection,we analyzethe use of theevolutionarynd revolu-tionary hangetactics nthethree nitiatives.

Change acticsObservednBPRInitiativesNO INITIATIVESOLELY USED EITHER REVOLUTIONARYOR EVOLUTIONARY TACTICS.Rather, he nitiatives ampledbothtypesof tactics lthough o a varying xtent ythephase of the initiatives. he morefrequent se of revolutionary hange tactics


7/29/2019 New Marketing40398154

15/28


occurredduring design than during mplementationt FinanceCo and FoodCo.FinanceCo and FoodCo exhibited revolutionarypproachto design,but an evolu-tionary pproachtochangeduring mplementation.efenseCo deployedbothrevo-lutionarynd evolutionaryacticsduring esignand implementation.Hence,the moreradicaltheplannedchange, hemoretheorganizations mployedrevolutionaryhange actics uring esign, utnotnecessarily uring mplementation.This findings somewhat aradoxicalgiventhat hemajority factualchangeoccursduring mplementation. able 4 compares the change tacticsused foreach BPRinitiative. able 5 summarizeswhether he use ofrevolutionaryacticsdecreasedorincreased uringhe nitiatives' ilot nd mplementationhasefromhat f hedesignphase.

LeadershipThe leadershipchange tacticsused at FinanceCo and FoodCo were revolutionaryduring esign,butevolutionary uringmplementation. tDefenseCo,theapproachto leadershipwas a mix ofevolutionarynd revolutionaryuring esignand imple-mentation.All three nitiatives sednewmanagementalent nthebeginning. his inflowdidnot,however, ontinue ver time.FinanceComadethemostuse of outsidemanagersin thebeginning.A newpresidentnd a newseniorvicepresidentfoperations/custo-mermarketing erehired, nd BPR emerged s a way to prototypend implementthe deas that urfaced rom henewstrategic lanning rocess.The newpresident fthe organizationregularly ndorsedthe reengineeringnitiatives nd was activelyparticipatingn the communication o the broaderorganization.The senior vicepresidentwas seen as theowner ndchampion fthereengineeringffort.At DefenseCo and FoodCo, the momentum orBPR was established ymanagerswho had beenpart f theorganization or number fyears.However, nboth ases,new managerswere brought n to provideday-to-day roject eadershipafter heinitiatives ad beenfunded.AtDefenseCo, a manager ame from nother art fthecompany.The newmanager crutinizedheproposal nd was initially uiteskepticalaboutthe need for he nitiative:

Since I had been a customer f thepurchasing rea, knewtherewas an opportunityto makechangesthatwould result nbetter ervicetocustomers nd reductionsnheadcount. was initially keptical f theBPR initiative nd,quitefrankly,lmostpulledtheplugon the nitiative.When the BPR initiative roposalcrossedmydesk,we were n a downsizingphase. I knewthat could eliminatepeople from hepurchas-ingarea and I didn't need a computer ystem o do that.FromNovemberuntilJanu-ary, he nitiativewas essentially n hold until warily greedto move forward. venso, I agreedtomove forwardwith hestipulation hat he nitiativewould have togen-erateheadcount avingsthatwere not volumegenerated. urther, e would have to beable to cutcycle times nd throughput.FoodCo hired a manager specifically to manage the BPR initiative who hadimplemented an MRPII systemat a smaller manufacturer.The manager was promoted


7/29/2019 New Marketing40398154

16/28

95

ImII

7/29/2019 New Marketing40398154

17/28


Table 5 Increaser Decrease fRevolutionaryacticsnPilot/ImplementationPhaseComparedoDesignPhaseFinanceCo DefenseCo FoodCo

Leadership/management-New managers and leaders i i i-Full-time dedicated i No change imanagers-Outside consultants i No change iEmployee involvement-Qualified members (best of I t No changebreed type)- Full-time eam members -Isolated teams from est of ^ No change IoperationsCommunication-Limited (need to knowonly) No change No change No changeMotivation orBPRCrisis ^ No change No changeMilestonesRigid No change No change Culture nd structure hange-Layoffs ofemployees No change t No change- New structuresdepart- i ' 'ments,teams)- New roles I - New compensation schemes I ' +IT change-Simultaneity oftechnology 1? No change 4,and social systemchangesthree imes uringisfirstighteen onths ith he ompany,eflectingheneed oensurehat ehad ufficientesourceso arryut heBPR and egitimizehe usinesschanges ewasattempting.full-timeanagementeamwasalso nitiallyedicatedtomanage he usinessonversionnd rainingssociated ith he ystem.Duringhe ilotsnd nitialmplementation,ewerull-timeanagementesourceswere edicatedothe ffortst FinanceCondFoodCo.AtFinanceCo,nofficerf hecompanyho oordinatedhe eengineeringnitiativesn full-timeasis uringesignwasassigneddditionalesponsibilitiesuringilotsnd mplementation.tFoodCo,dedicatedmanagementeamdecreasedver ime. orexample, training anagerinitiallyorkingiill-timen he nitiativelsobegan operformdditionalctivities.All threeompaniestilizedutsideonsultants,lthoughhe se decreaseduringimplementationxcept t DefenseCo.AtFinanceCo ndFoodCo,their oles lsochanged. heir ctivities eremore trategicnthe arly hases han nthe aterphases.AtFoodCo, hey elped odefineheprojectndvalidatehebusiness ase


7/29/2019 New Marketing40398154

18/28


beforefundingwas approved.At FinanceCo, the consultants elpedto develop thenew business strategynd provided he tools and methodsforBPR. During mple-mentation, he consultants'role was limitedto one of performingudits of theinitiativesndassisting n software evelopment.By contrast,t DefenseCo,the consultant layeda majorrole through esignandimplementation.he consultant's ackage nspired visionforBPR andnewroles.Theconsultantssistedwithmodificationsothepackage hatwaspurchased. heconsultantmanaged he mplementationo newprocesses ncludinghe rainingfemployees.EmployeenvolvementEmployee nvolvementacticswererevolutionarytFinanceCo and FoodCo duringdesign,but evolutionary uring mplementation. t DefenseCo, the employee in-volvementwas somewhatmorerevolutionarynimplementationhan ndesign.At FinanceCo and FoodCo, employeesselectedto workon thedesignof thenewprocesseswereconsidered o be "bestofbreed."AtFoodCo, thedesign eam ncludedtwomanagement-leveleople from achplant ype.AtFinanceCo,a crossfunctional,multilevel eamof six employeesworkedwithoutsideconsultants o develop a newstrategyhatguidedtheworkofthe pecific mplementationnitiatives.In bothFinanceCo and FoodCo, employeesassignedto designand test thenewprocesseswere dedicatedfiill-timeo theeffortnd werephysically eparatedfromthosewho were usingtraditionalworkapproaches.They were also constantly e-mindedbymanagementhat heywereembracinghenew business trategy, hereasotherswere "in the old business." At FoodCo, plantemployeeswere relocatedtoheadquarters oworkon theBPR initiative.At bothFinanceCo and FoodCo, thenumber f ftill-timeeople declined as theprojects pproached hepilot tage.Similarly,more representative"eople from heworkforcewere nvolved.The pilots lso occurrednthenormalwork reas.DefenseCo' s approachto employee nvolvement an be characterized s a some-what volutionary hangetactic ndesignwith revolutionarylavor nimplementa-tion. ndesign, he mployeeswereexpected o continueoperformheirwork s ithadbeentraditionallyefined. he employees articipatedart-timenthedesign ctivities.Theopportunityoparticipaten thedesign ndtestingfthenewprocesseswasa publicacknowledgmenthathepersonwas a "high erformer."ecauseof hedrastic eductionofdepartmentaltaffuringmplementation,roportionatelyore eoplewere xcludedfrom ewworkprocesses t DefenseCothan n theother wo initiatives. lso, duringimplementation,ll employees witched o the new workapproachesratherhantheorganization aintainingoth henewandtheoldwaysofdoingbusiness.CommunicationNone of the nitiatives olloweda revolutionaryactic n communicatingbouttheinitiative.Rather, ll initiatives mphasizedbroadcommunication,n evolutionarytactic, rom he start.


7/29/2019 New Marketing40398154

19/28


At FinanceCo, early n the nitiative,hesenior eadershipmetwith mployeesatall levels toexplainthenewbusinessvision, trategy,ndhow theBPR would affectemployees.A videotape imulating ewworkprocesseswas shown n small nterac-tiveround-table iscussions.Thereengineeringeams lsoprepared umerous rticlesfor heparent ompany'snewspaper nd for heorganization's wnnewsletter,ndset up a kiosk in a lobbyto inform mployeesand customers f thereengineeringinitiative.A course thatcovered the basics of the new strategywas added to theorganization's rainingurriculum.At FoodCo, theplantrepresentativesntheBPR teamwereexpectedtokeeptheirplantsupto datewith he nitiative's rogress.naddition, heBPR teamheldweeklymeetings, ublishedwidelydistributed ewsletters verytwo to threemonths, ndoffered onceptualand hands-on raining n MRPII. The corporate taffwas beinginformedboutthe nitiative rimarilyhroughhesponsorof the nitiative ntilhisretirementnthe fallof 1992.DefenseCo held weekly 6:30 A.M.breakfastmeetingsopen to people fromalldepartments. uring hosemeetings, mployees nvolved n theBPR provided tatusreports, nd bothteammembers nd seniormanagementwere available to answerquestions.Butonlythe same40 or so employeesofthedepartment's 60 employeestended o come regularlyo themeetings.In all three nitiatives, roadcommunicationontinued uring hepilotand early-implementationhases;the mpact fcommunication,owever, ecreasedovertime.Whensomeofthe mployeesfirst eardofthe nitiativeusually n thedesignphase),theybelievedthat hechangeswere imminent r alreadyhappening. ince nothingwas implemented or ome time, mployeesbeganto questionwhether hangewasforthcomingnd tended opayless attentionowhatwas beingcommunicated.Motivationor PRDuringdesign,FinanceCo exhibited revolutionaryactic omotivatinghe ompanyforthechange; during mplementation,he tacticwas evolutionary. t FoodCo, themotivation asevolutionarynnaturenboth esign nd mplementation.tDefenseCo,themotivation as characterizeds revolutionaryuring esign nd mplementation.Atthe ime f pproval,managementt FinanceCoandat DefenseCocommunicatedtheBPR effortncrisis erminology. inanceCo's employeeswere toldthat inancialresultswerepoor and, iftheywere to stay nbusiness,thecompanyhad to change.However,perhapsbecause of the ength fthe nitiative,heneedsomewhat hangedin theeyes of thoseconducting ilots.Theysaw themselves s helping o implementthe rganization's ew customer-focusedervice ndsales strategiesather han ryingto turn round he firm's inancial erformance.At DefenseCo, the decliningdefensebudgetsdemandedthat eitherDefenseCoemployees and managers figure ut how to do more with ess to competefor thedecliningdefensedollaror,as onemanagernoted, None ofus will have obs." Thecrisis mentalitywas sustained in implementation,argelybecause of continuingpersonnel ayoffs.


7/29/2019 New Marketing40398154

20/28


AtFoodCo, the BPR was presented s an opportunityor he division togeneratemore wealth for the company. The BPR' s financial implications representedsignificant ost reductions,80 percentof which would be due to material costreductions. Employees were also informedof the benchmarkstudy,that theorganization had conducted showing that its information ystems capabilitieslagged behind those at other food manufacturers. uring implementation, heinitiativewas associated with, s well as suffered rom, heneed to cutoperatingcosts drastically.The organizationhad experienced an unexpected"down" yearfollowedby some plantclosings, consolidations,and organizationaldownsizing.The financial situationresulted n the initiativebecoming undermore financialscrutiny. he projectexperienceda reduction n itsresources.MilestonesAtFoodCo and atDefenseCo, a revolutionarypproachwas deployedformanagingmilestonesduringdesign. The revolutionaryacticwas maintained t DefenseCoduring mplementation,ut not at FoodCo. FinanceCo exhibited n evolutionaryapproach omilestones uring esignand implementation.Rigid milestoneswere establishedat FoodCo and DefenseCo for schedule andbenefits. efenseCo adhered o thosedeadlines.The same appliedtoFoodCo in thedesign and pilot phases. In implementation,ome slippage occurredbecause ofresourcesdiverted rom he nitiative.Flexiblemilestoneswereusedat FinanceCo.The BPR involved xperimenting ithnew ways of doing business, and an overall timeframewas developed for thecompanywide eengineeringnitiative.Whereprior rganizational xperiments ug-gesteda projectwouldyieldpositiveresults,milestoneswereset. Forthoseprojectsinitiated o test new" approaches, hemilestoneswereflexible.ChangefCurrenttructurendCultureThe threeBPR projectsplannedrevolutionaryhangesto thestructurend culture.The changescan be characterizeds evolutionarytFinanceCo andFoodCo (partic-ularly n viewoftheplanned hanges).The changesweremostprofound t Defense-Co, although ontained oone department.Sincethebeginning fdesign,FoodCo andFinanceCospent esources nemployeetraining nd educationfor he new requiredbehaviorsand values. Maintaining henecessary evel offunding or ducationbecame a challengeovertime.The pace ofbehaviorand value changes slowed down with the decreased educationalbudgetsduring ilots nd implementation.At FinanceCo,majororganizational hangeswerepiloted, ut fewwere seen to beimplementable rganization- ide because ofcost and risk.Duringthepilotphases,some keymanagers began to manage across functions nd products i.e., by pro-cesses). Crossfunctionaleamswerepiloted.Forexample,personal ustomer-serviceteams provided a single point of contactfora customer.The organizationalso


7/29/2019 New Marketing40398154

21/28


experimentedwithteam-based and skill-basedcompensation.A senior managerelaborated:Compensationillbe based n obs skills,willingnessocontinueo earnndde-velop, nd he bilityofunctionn team nvironment.urnewob evaluationys-temwillmotivateeople odevelop widerrrayf kills.Gol-sharingill ieindividualewardsothe erformancef he eam nd he orporations a whole.

The proposalfor heskill-based ompensationwas shelved,however,because man-agementwas unable to develop a cost-effectivend fair ransition lan to the newscheme.Most other tructural/culturalhangeswere scaled downorputon hold.At FoodCo, relativelyittlewas accomplished n terms f cultural hangebecauseofplantresistance, rojectdelays,thereduction f resourcesdevotedtothechange,and the focuson systems ather hanon overallprocesses. For example,the nitialplanned alled forhiring utside onsultants otonly odesignbut lso tomanagetheeducationand training rograms. his was ruledout laterbecause of cost. Instead,representativesrom lantsweregroomed o be coaches. Because oftheirimited imeandresources, he raining asmostly nPC skills ndon themechanics fthe ystem("keyboarding").Little imewas spent nconceptual raining or henewprocesses.Also, thedesignwas revisedduring hepilotstagebecause ofplantresistance othenewwaysofworking.According o a BPR teammember,[P]eople eltwe werentrudingon] heirturf."heynsistednreplicatingheirldwork atterns. e acked he ower ooffsethis esistance.urprogress asdepen-dent n cross unctionalgreementshatwere ery ime onsumingonegotiate.AtDefenseCo, thestructurendculture f thepurchasing rganizationwas signif-icantly hanged.Yet, thefact hat he nitiativewas restrictedo one functionmadetheorganizational hangesrelativelyasierthan t FinanceCoandFoodCo. Financialreward tructures ererevamped o reflecthenewexpandedobs andresponsibilities.Most supervisory-levelobs wereeliminated s manycontrolswereautomated, ndemployeeswereempowered omakedecisionsthat reviously adto be approvedbya superior.

IT ChangeAt FinanceCo and FoodCo, the approachto IT was revolutionaryn design andevolutionary n implementation. efenseCo's approachwas evolutionaryn bothdesignand implementation.At FinanceCo and FoodCo, IT helped to envision new ways of working.AtFinanceCo,therewere number f host ystemshat he ustomermanagementeamshad to access inorder orespond o customer equests nd toprepare ales proposals.These legacy systemswereproduct-based, ot customer-based. he new PC-basedfront-endystemswould allow a teammember imultaneouslyo access a number fhostsystems nd build an integrated iew ofa customer'srelationships. ver time,additionaldistributedustomer atabases and application ystemswere to be rolledout. For example, a new order-entryystemwould allow a nonexpert such as a


7/29/2019 New Marketing40398154

22/28


member f a customermanagementeam)totake nformationromhe ustomer. hesystemwouldautomatically rocess simpleorders.At FoodCo, the BPR initiativewas to implement standard nformationystemacrossa heterogeneousetofplants.Thesystemwas topush nformationnddecisionmakingdownto theplants s well as to allow betterntegrationfplant nformationatheadquarters. o materialize he cost savingsfrom T investments,usinesspro-cesses wouldhave to be streamlined ndstandardized.Similarly, t DefenseCo, theknowledgeof available technology ad inspired heBPR initiative. manager laborated:

Thepurchasing anageraw anarticle hich escribedpurchasingystemhat adbeendevelopednd nstalledy consultantt anotherompany.hemanageron-tactedhe onsultantndbecome urtheronvincedhathe ystem ould mproveheflow fworkwithinhe epartment.hesolution ould lsoequip he epartmentwithMacintoshomputershatouldbe used s front-endsohost ased ystems.

None of the initiatives, owever, doptedthe IT revolutionaryhangetactic, he"all-at-once" trategynimplementation. tFinanceCo,thepilotteamsfirst earnedtheir ewroles;thenew Tplatformndapplicationswere ntroducedver three-yearperiod.The delayreflectedhe ead time odevelopthe new systems.At FoodCo, atechnical ystem receded hesocial-systemhanges.AtDefenseCo, theprocessresembled ne ofgradualadaptation f thesystem ndtheneworganizational oles.The designand implementationfthetechnologywereiterative. n stage one, the consultant ame up with a conceptualdesignto whichDefenseCo' smanagementgreed. nstagetwo, he onsultant orkedwith ront-lineemployeesfrom hepurchasing rea todesignthefinalrolesand system. n the firstrelease, heobs/roles emained nchanged; owever, uyers ndplannerswereaskedtotrain ne another n their espectiveobs. The newrolesandenhanced T capabil-itieswere ntroducednmultiple tages.All BPR effortsxperiencedproblems caling up fromprototypingo pilots andfull-scale mplementation. he IT departments ere fundamentallyhallenged insupporting he initiatives.At both FinanceCo and FoodCo, the IT department'scompetencywas in host-basedsystems.The new computer-based ystemwas adistributedystem n a platform nfamiliaro the T organization. inanceCo hirednew IT personnel s well as trainingmanyof itsexisting taffn new developmenttoolsandmethods.AtFoodCo, a group omprised fplantmanagers, ot T personnel,was chargedwith implementinghe new system,roles, and processes. Yet, theimplementationequired lose cooperation nd coordinationi.e., partnership) e-tween heplants nd thedivision'scentralizedT group.Similarly,tDefenseCo,the ystemhosenbythepurchasing epartment asbasedon a platform he IT group had no experiencewith.The iterativedevelopmentapproachwas also unfamiliarothem. he IT department'skills ndknowledgewerefocusedon on-linemainframeransaction-basedpplications nd on traditionalys-temsdevelopmentmethodologies.Their imited ersonal-computernowledgewason the BM type fequipment, ot n Macintosh.An informationechnologymanagernoted:


7/29/2019 New Marketing40398154

23/28


The consultant'sproposalthreatened ur fortitude. he iterative evelopment rocesswas not nsyncwithwhatour staff ad been told.People kept skingme,"How couldit be OK for he user to see theapplicationbefore twas done?"

Status f nitiativesAt theend of 1993, the three nitiativeswere at thefollowing tages: DefenseCo'sinitiative as successfully ompletedn 1 92; theFoodCo and FinanceCoefforts erein themidst fpilot ndfield mplementationhases.At FoodCo andFinanceCo,thepace of mplementationad slowed downconsiderably. tFoodCo, the econdreleaseof thesystem nitiallycheduledforFall 1993was rescheduled oSpring1994. Thethird eleasewas puttemporarilyn holduntil heoperational enefits ccruedfromthe econdrelease wereknown.Discussion fFindingsOur proposition was that accomplishing radical change requires evolution-arychange tactics:the moreradicalthechange outcomes see figure ), themorerevolutionaryhe tactics.We discussedthree eengineeringnitiativesnd describedwhetherndhowthey sedrevolutionaryhange actics.None ofthe ases subscribedreligiously orevolutionaryactics.The revolutionary actics were used more in design than n implementationnthe two projectswith themost radical planned outcomes. The projectsexercisedan evolutionary pproachto thepilotand implementation hases. For example, atFoodCo, theplantmanagerwas givendiscretion s to whenthe new process andsystemwould be implemented na particular lant.The implementation eams atbothFoodCo and FinanceCo included ncreasingnumbers fpart-timersndfewerconsultantsthan in the design teams. One managerat FoodCo remarkedon thepace,

This sreally othingew.Long nitiativeslways end o ose momentumhe ongertheyre round. carce orporateollars end ogofor ewer,better"nitiatives.TheyaremanyreasonswhyFinanceCo and FoodCo did not exerciserevolutionarytactics in implementation, hereas DefenseCo did. Here we speculate on a fewreasons, ncluding he ize ofthe nitiatives,motivation,eniormanagementnvolve-ment, nd lead timesfor T development. nother etof reasonsrelate o thebenefitsthat ccrue from heuse ofevolutionaryactics.The narrowscope of the DefenseCo initiative ppeared to facilitate ts use ofrevolutionaryactics. n largeefforts,hefinancial nd humancosts and risksof therevolutionaryactics ppeartobe unpalatable.Forexample,the arger he nitiative,themorededicatedfull-timeaborpower sneeded.However, t s difficulto sustainlargeteamsoffull-timemembers. everalmanagers emarked n howrestructuringandreorganizations asilyunderminedeams' efforts. otedone:


7/29/2019 New Marketing40398154

24/28


Energy Revolutionary ' Evolutionaryfor TacticsUsed ' TacticsUsedRadical 'Change '^

Design Pilot ImplementationProjectPhaseFigure 3. Use ofRevolutionarynd Evolutionary actics

The toughest hing s to leave theteam alone. Ina changing nvironment,ou arecon-stantly estructuringndregrouping.t s temptingoregroup heteam as well. Thissets theteam back.The use ofrevolutionaryactics ppeared orequire true risis nan organization.It was not sufficiento communicate n anticipated risis.FoodCo and FinanceCoexperienceddecliningprofitability,ut neitherwas in a true financialcrisis. Bycontrast,DefenseCo's survival was a daily topic in management nd employeediscussions.The use ofrevolutionaryactics lso required ctivetop-managementnvolvement.The championhadto be personally nvolved n thedesignand implementationeamactivities, nd had to serveas cheerleader, oach, and referee.Keeping thesponsorandchampion ntactppeared obemore hallenginghegreaterhe copeandplanneddepthofchange.Forexample,atFoodCo, thesponsorretired. ater,the nitiative's

championwas promoted nd steppedfurtherway from heday-to-day ctivities fthe initiative. he teambegan to feel detached from heorganization's eadership.Without trong nd visiblemanagement upport, he teammigrated oward morecomfortablevolutionaryactics.AlthoughT was a critical nabler fnewvisions nddesigns nall threenitiatives,the bsenceof needed T capabilities nd skills et the nitiatives ack,particularlynthe ase ofFinanceCo.Poor nfrastructurendpoorly efined ataarchitectures eantthat ignificant esourceshad to be committed o accomplish applications hat up-ported processperspective. his meant hat simultaneous hangeoftechnologyand social systems ouldnotoccur.AtFoodCo, a packagewas purchased hat llowedthe"technical-system-first"pproach.However,thisapproach lost the synergisticbenefits f mplementinghe ocial and technical hanges together.There werealso manybenefits hat ccrued from he use of evolutionary actics.


7/29/2019 New Marketing40398154

25/28


None of the projectsused a revolutionaryactic to communication.All projectspracticedopen communication. ome managersfelt hat ecrecyaround nitiativesearlyon would have led to evenmore resistance nd reducedpotential buy-in" nimplementation.In addition,broad communication esulted n some positiveunanticipated onse-quences. One managerremarked: People beginto implementhechangeson theirown, withoutbeing partof the formal hange effort." road communication lsohelpedtogetnewchampions ndsponsors ostep n whentheoriginal eengineeringleadersbeganto redirectheir ttention.Yet, thethree nitiativeswe studied uggestthat ffectivelyommunicatingo abroad audience was a majorchallenge.All threereengineeringnitiatives eceivedfeedback hatmuchmorecommunicationwas necessary hanhadbeendonetokeeptherest f heorganizationufficientlybreast f heprogress. ne leader ommented:You always nderestimatehe mountf ommunicationouhave odo.Always ri-plewhat ou hinkt akes.Most ommunicationsneeded tthemanagementevel,particularlyhemiddlemanagement.hefrontinegroups much uickero eizetheopportunity.

Flexiblemilestones ppearedto increasecreativitynd "out-of-the-box"hinking.Theywere also seentodecreaseseniormanagement's endencyomicro-manageheteam,to focustheteamon strategic atherhan acticalobjectives.The lack ofrigidmilestones lso helped theteamsto spendmoretimecommunicatingo thosenotdirectlynvolvedwhathad beenaccomplished o far.In noneof theBPR initiatives idtheorganization akeadvantageofnewbusinessopportunities, ew facilities, rnewly opened locations.So-called "greenfleld"m-plementationmeansengaging n"engineering" newbusinessratherhan reengin-eering" r"renovating"nexisting usiness.Noneof hefirms adtheoption o divesttheir urrent usinesswholesale and invest n a newone. One executiveremarked:

To use the lean late pproachoreengineeringeans ewbusinessndnew ntre-preneurs;etmost orporateoards re ntolerantfnew ntrepreneurialentures.

ConclusionOur analysis of three reenginerring initiatives suggests thatBPR does notalways result n radicalchange in a short eriodoftime.Although heFoodCo andFinanceCo initiatives ad radicalobjectives, heprogress lowed down nimplemen-tation s evolutionaryacticswere used.None oftheprojectsused a "clean slate,"orgreenfield,ypeof implementation.he findings f the currenttudygo counter oHammer'sdefinitionfreengineering:

When omeonesksusfor quick efinitionfbusiness rocess eengineering,esay hat tmeans startingver." tdoesn'tmean inkeringithwhat lreadyxists rmakingncrementalhangeshateavebasic tructuresntact.t sn't boutmakingpatchworkixes jury-riggingxistingystemso thatheywork etter.tdoes meanabandoningong-establishedroceduresnd ookingfresht thework equiredocreate company's roductr ervicenddeliver alue othe ustomer.


7/29/2019 New Marketing40398154

26/28


In otherwords, ur nalysis uggests hat lthough eengineeringandeliver adicaldesigns, tdoes notnecessarily romise revolutionarypproach tochange.More-over,a revolutionaryhange processmight otbe feasiblegiventherisk nd cost ofrevolutionary actics. Sustainable incremental mprovement ia an evolutionarychange processmight e whatcompaniesshould sometimes xpectas success fromBPR. Companiesneed to tailor heexpectations nd changemanagement acticsofBPR to the nitiative's cope, depth, nd available implementationime.The currentindingsre,ofcourse,highly reliminary.heyare based on three asestudies.The findingsmaynotbe generalizable o nitiatives ith ifferent otivationsand contexts.We invite otherresearchers o replicateand expand on the currentfindings.We also call formore research ttentionomanaging hange n BPR. BPRisnotustaboutenvisioning ewwaysofworking.t s about mplementinghosenewways. Work is particularly eeded on the contingency actorsforthe successfulmanagement fBPR change.Suchwork hould takemultiple iewpoints,ncludingtheorganization,workgroup, ndindividual.One might ssess theriskpropensityfBPR championswho arewilling o use revolutionaryactics n implementationndcompare theirattitudes o change with an organization'soverall climate towardchange. Similarly,muchworkremains n developingmeasures o assess themagni-tudeofchangeaccomplished nprocesses,behaviors,values,and so on. The roleofinformationechnologyn BPR needs clarification.T researchersmight ddressthetransformationhat nternalT groupsmustundergo osupport PR initiatives.REFERENCES

1. Adams,J.D. TransformingWork.Alexandria,VA: Miles RiverPress,1984.2. Barley,S.R. Technology s anoccasion for tructure:videncefrom bservations fCTscanners nd thesocial orderofradiologydepartments. dministrativecience Quarterly, 1(1986), 78-108.3. Benjamin,R.I., and Levinson,E. A frameworkormanaging T-enabledchange.SloanManagementReview Summer1993), 23-33.4. Damanpour,F., and Evan,W. Organizationalnnovation ndperformance:heproblemoforganizational ag.Administrativecience Quarterly, 9 (1984), 329-409.5. Davenport,T. Process Innovation.Boston:HarvardBusiness School Press,1993.6. Davidson, W.H. Beyond re-engineering:hethreephases of business Transformation.IBM SystemsJournal, 2, 1 (1993), 65-79.7. Eldredge,N.,andGould,S.J.Punctuatedquilibria: n alternativeophyletic radualism.InModels inPaleobiology. San Francisco:Freeman,Cooper, 1972.8. Gersick,C. J.G.Revolutionaryhangetheories: multilevel xploration t thepunctuatedequilibrium aradigm.AcademyofManagementReview,16, 1 (1991), 10-36.9. Gibson, CF., andJackson, .B. The nformationmperative. exingtonMA: LexingtonBooks, 1987.10. Hall, G.; Rosenthal,J.;and Wade, J.How to makereengineenng eallywork. HarvardBusinessReview November-December1993), 119-131.1 1 Hammer.M. Reengineenngwork:don tautomate, bliterate. arvard BusinessReview(July-August 990), 104-112.1 . Hammer,M., andChampy,J.Reengineenng heCorporation.New York:HarperCollins,1993.13. HarvardBusiness School. Taco Bell. Case studyNo. 692-058, Boston, 1992.14. Kanter,R.M.; Stein, B.A.; andJick, . TheChallenge of OrganizationalChange. NewYork: The Free Press,1992.


7/29/2019 New Marketing40398154

27/28


15. Kilmann,R.H., and Covin,T.J.CorporateTransformation: evitalizingOrganizationsfor a CompetitiveWorld. an Franscisco:Jossey-Bass,1 88.16. King,J., nd Konsynski,B. SingaporeTradeNet:a tale of one city.HarvardBusinessSchool, 9-191-009, June1990.1 . Leonard-Barton, . Implementations mutual daptation ftechnology nd organiza-tion.ResearchPolicy, 77(1 988), 25 1-267.1 . Lewin,. Frontiers ngroup dynamics: oncept,method, ndreality n social science.HumanRelations 1957), 5-42.1 . Liker,J.;Roitman,D.B.; andRoskies,E. Changing verythingll atonce: work ife ndtechnological hange.Sloan ManagementReview Summer1987), 29-47.20. Loye,D., andEisler,R. Chaos and transformation:mplications fnonequihbnum heoryfor ocial science and society.BehavioralScience, 32 (1987), 53-65.21 Markus,M.L., andRobey,D. Informationechnology ndorganizational hange:causalstructurentheory ndresearch.Management cience, 34, 5 (May 1988), 583-598.22. Nadler,D.A. Organizational rame ending: ypes fchange n the omplexorganization.In R.H. Kilmann ndT.J. Covin (eds.), CorporateTransformation:evitalizingOrganizationsfor a CompetitiveWorld. an Francisco:Jossey-Bass,1988.23. Nutt,P.C. Tactics of implementation. cademyofManagementJournal,29, 2 (1986),230-261.24. Orlikowski,W.J. CASE tools as organizational hange: investigatingncrementalndradicalchangesinsystems evelopment.MIS Quarterly, 7, 3 (September1993), 309-340.25. Short,J.E.,and Venkatraman, . Beyondbusinessprocessredesign:refining axter'sbusinessnetwork. loan ManagementReview Fall 1 9 1 , 7-2 126. Stoddard, D., and McFarlan,W. Otisline A). HarvardBusiness School, 9-186-304,1986.27. Tushman,M.L.; Newman, W.H.; andRomanelli,E. Convergence ndupheaval:manag-ing heunsteady ace oforganizational volution.CaliforniaManagementReview, 9, 1 1 86),29-44.

28. Tushman, M., and Romanelli,E. Organizational volution: metamorphosismodel ofconvergence nd reorientation.n L. Cummins ndB. Staw eds.), Research inOrganizationalBehavior,vol. 7. Greenwich,CT: JAIPress,1985, pp. 171-222.29. Venkatraman, . IT-enabledbusiness ransformationrom utomation o businessscoperedefinition.loan ManagementReview Winter1994), 73-88.

AppendixA: Interviewuide1 Whatwere he esponsibilitiesf he erson eingnterviewedngeneralndinterms f he urrenteengineeringnitiative?2. How didreengineeringet tarted? hywas t tarted?3. How were onsultantssedonthe nitiative?4. What id he rganizationotoget eady or eengineering?5. When id he nitiativeetformallyaunched?Whenwasthe eam ormed?6. What avebeen hemajor vents ndmilestonesf he nitiative?7. What vents ndmilestonesreforthcoming?8. Whatwere he bjectivesf henitiativet he eginning,t he nd fdesign,at he nd fpilot?Howwere he bjectivesstablishednd ommunicated?9. Whowas nvolvednthe nitiative? ere hey ull-time/part-time?howasexcluded?1 . Whowas the ponsorf he nitiative? hatwasthe ponsor's ackground?What id hey o for he nitiative?11. Whowas the hampionf the nitiative? hatwas the hampion's ack-


7/29/2019 New Marketing40398154

28/28


ground?Whatdidtheydo for he nitiative?12. How was the nitiative ommunicated o those not nvolved?Whendidthecommunicationakeplace? Whatwas theform nd medium?1 . Whattype f milestones idthe nitiative ave? Werethey lexible rrigid?1 . Whattype ftraining as provided?1 Whatwas donetoprepare heorganization or ehavior nd attitudehanges?16. How has theorganization hanged o accommodate henewprocesses?1 . What was the role of S function nd informationystems pplications?1 . How else has thechangebeenmanagedon the nitiative?19. What werethemain essonsfrom he nitiative?

new marketing40398154

Documents