Organisations that are successful using other approaches or techniques of quality management, like, total quality management, would obviously feel that there would not be a benefit of implementing the business process re-engineering approach into their organisation, however organisations that are not competitive enough, and demand dramatic changes for a number of reasons, which can include, becoming more competitive, to satisfy impending environmental changes or seek to gain a substantial advantage over its competitors may look towards the business re-engineering approach to overcome their problems. This means that “for some, Business process reengineering is concerned simply with short term cost saving, whilst for others it promises a radical future.” (D. Knights, 2000) For the approach to be successful there are a number implementation stages that need to be put into place, however firstly it is very important that an appropriate re-engineering team is selected to guide the organisation through the changing process. A positive and successful re-engineering team contains members who are: creative and logical, can translate radical ideas into working solutions, have excellent interpersonal skills and communication skills and have an appreciation for the use of information technology.
The implementation process of business process re-engineering usually begins once the organisation are clear why re-engineering is required. It can be used to solve a long standing problem which all other kinds of managing quality approaches have failed in solving or normally it is used as a follow on from a total quality management approach which seems to have run out of steam and has started to fade away. It is essential that top management are committed to the approach, as successful implementation of the re-engineering process usually requires between 20 – 50% of the leaders time. The processes that need to be redesigned then need to be identified. There are two approaches to identifying the processes that need to be changed, the first approach is known as the exhaustive approach, which identifies all of the processes within an organisation and then positions them in order of urgency, the second approach is known as the high impact approach which only attempts to identify the most important processes. With these processes management can start to design new processes using I.T. Once the new processes have been designed, management need to start planning implementing the new processes and identify the problems, both technical and social. This can mean the introduction and eradication of technology as well as staff. “In most cases, staffing needs to be reduced and those involved in non-value adding activities made redundant.” (M Keleman, 2003) This includes managerial positions as well as employee positions. Once all of the plans are in place then implementation can take place. Usually, during the initial stage of implementation the employee’s morale is at its lowest. Continuous improvement is then required to improve the new processes. This suggests that business process re-engineering, even though initially it is very different from total quality management, does integrate the ideas of total quality management into its approach. Therefore it can be seen that the two approaches are in fact quite similar, even though the main approach of the two is very different.
It is apparent that when business process re-engineering is installed within an organisation, a large number of changes take place. As mentioned before this involves both technical and social changes, therefore this is a very telling time for both the managers and the employees. The manager, who tends to be part of the re-engineering team needs to be fully committed to the changes that are going to be implemented as harsh and ruthless orders need to be carried out. They also need to be enthusiastic about the changes and try to filter this enthusiasm through to the employees. Obviously managers can become very unpopular during this time as employees and middle managers will be made redundant and changes to the workforce will be enforced. Employee’s morale will be very low as their jobs will become very insecure and the large amount of change will effect their attitudes to the organisation and to the manager. If the workforce is very close and work well together, then employees who are maintained will find it very difficult to accept their fellow workers being made redundant. If the managers do not maintain a large amount of commitment and enthusiasm then they may not be able to make the employees come round to their way of thinking meaning the whole implementation stage could be a failure, which would be a negative way to start a new approach in an organisation and would most likely continue to fail. Therefore the implementation stage is extremely important. Top management is required and very important to make the employees feel important and a vital part of the organisation. If a manager very high up within an organisation communicates with an employee, then instantly the employee will feel more important and this in turn would lift confidence and morale. The managers style, at first, needs to be autocratic and aggressive, however during the “later stage in the process, top managers must act as consensus seekers and role models for employees.” (Hall and Colleagues, 1993, cited from M Keleman, 2003)
The business process re-engineering approach delayers the hierarcy and focuses on added value meaning employees have more responsibility and therefore can carry out decisions on their own accord, whereas previously they may have been told the action to carry out by managers. This obviously benefits the employees and makes them feel more important with the extra responsibility which in turn usually increases morale and motivation, this leads to a greater output as well as it being of a higher quality. However, it can be argued that re-engineering the organisation only increases to the employees job intensity and the extra responsibility given to the employees is just another form of control by the management. This means that the management can use the extra responsibility given to the employees as a means of overlooking possibly the amount of work they carry out and whether or not the employees interests are the same as their own. If this is the case then it is understandably essential that the employees do not know their managers motives. If they were to know then this would lead to morale dropping lower than before as it shows the managers do not trust or have faith in their employees. This would be the worst scenario for the managers as it would essentially mean that the organisation would be in a worse off position than before the re-engineering of the organisation took place. This would occur because before the reengineering process, although the business was probably under performing, the employees would have been more content working in a more secure and familiarised environment. If the employees realised that the reengineering process was implemented with the intent to closely overlook them, then it is understandable that “they generally experience subsequently feelings of psychological trauma rather than empowerment.” (M Keleman, 2003) As it would seem that not only are the management rapidly changing the way things are carried out, making the employees jobs insecure, but the positions of the employees are more intense and therefore this would lead to a harder job with far more pressure. Employees taking on positions which require more responsibility and more work as the workforce is re structured would obviously expect and even demand more reward for their efforts, meaning the reengineering would tend to benefit employees financially who are kept on within the organisation.
Customers are seen as the main focal point of business re-engineering, however it is claimed that the shareholders will also benefit from the approach as managers will build on customer satisfaction to enhance profits, this will allow the shareholders to reap the rewards. This suggests that the process business re-engineering approach benefits the customers of an organisation as they are seen as the most important people from within the organisation and therefore the customer needs are very highly prioritised and concentrated on. This means that the customers should become more satisfied by the service that is offered to them as more time and effort has been allocated to their requirements which should generally enhance the quality of the service. However it would seem that the customer may have to pay for this privilege as higher prices would be charged by the organisation which in turn increases the profits of the organisation and the shareholders.
The business process reengineering approach can be an effective way to transform the performance of an organisation and therefore be the difference between the success and failure of an organisation. It is a very drastic approach which will have a very large effect on the organisation as it entails such strong and brutal changes. However, the ruthless approach is the ingredient that differentiates it from any other approach and therefore can transform an under achieving business into a successful business. For an organisation that is performing well in the sense that profits are acceptable and the overall structure and culture of the organisation is satisfactory, it would be very unlikely that the reengineering approach would be used, if so, not to the extreme extent that it can be used when totally over hauling an organisation. If it was used to its radical potential it could, instead of increasing profits, have the opposite effect and make the organisation dysfunctional. An organisation which is underperforming has a greater potential to reap the rewards of the business process reengineering approach, if a suitable reengineering team is selected to promote and implement the changes. If this is not the case then the approach is less likely to impose itself on the organisation.
The managers carry out the most important role when reengineering an organisation, as it essential that they can pass on their enthusiasm and way of thinking to their employees. If they can then the approach is far more likely to succeed as the implementation process will be installed with less complications which should mean the organisation can start fully functioning sooner. However if the managers cannot promote the approach defiantly within the organisations, a large number of problems and issues can occur with the employees. The manager’s input is also required long after the implementation stage as they should continue to act as a role model for the employees, meaning the re-engineering process continuously requires the manager’s involvement. It is also vital that the employees believe that the restructuring of the organisation is promoting them as they take on more responsibility, if they view the change as a way of control then again many problems will arise. For the employees that are maintained within the organisation, the reengineering process can greatly benefit them in the long run as their jobs will be regarded more highly and more responsibility is passed onto them, this would usually increase their wage too, however initially it can be very difficult to deal with all the changes. For the employees who are made redundant, the approach obviously would not be regarded very highly. The customers should experience an improvement from the organisation as reengineering focuses mostly on the customer, therefore the quality of the product or service should increase, meaning the customer will benefit. The customer may have more input into the final product or service and therefore the organisation will be satisfying the customer’s demands and needs more effectively. It is however likely the customer would have to pay more for the service.
Overall the business process reengineering approach can be successful if the situation within the organisation requires large changes. It is however essential that the managers introduce the approach in the correct manner and have full backing from the employees. This can be seen as it is “estimated a 50-70 per cent failure rate for radical breakthrough, high risk projects.” (Hammer and Champy, 1993, cited from I Mcloughlin, 1997) If this is not the case the reengineering approach will fail and create more problems for the organisation.
Bibliography
Keleman. M. (2003) Managing Quality, Sage.
Knights. D, Willmott. H. (2000) The Reengineering Revolution, Sage.
Mcloughlin. I, Harris, M. (1997) Innovation, Organizational change and Technology, International Thompson Business Press.
