HI,
I thought I would share with you my experiences about making change
work (and stick) for the better.
This is based on personal experience of successfully implementing
(and subsequently living with the resulting improvements) a
fundamental change through processes in the largest Research
organisation in Europe, employing over 11,000 staff.
Whilst we did use process re-engineering to achieve lasting change,
it had to be accompanied by other reforms.
Text books on change will tell you there are at least four doors into
change - through organisation, through culture, through people, or
through processes.
Many favour organisation as the starting point. A radical new
organisation chart can be drawn and communicated in days and
communicated in weeks. Apparently job done. Not so. The fact is that
organisations are far more persistent than structure charts. Real
change needs something deeper.
There are management consultancies (sorry, but the next bit is true)
which make a healthy living out od advising on "cultural change". It
usually involves a new logo, a reworded vision statement. Its
persistence is not much stronger than a new organisation. Once people
see that the underlying reality is unchanged then the new image wears
off rapidly.
The prognosis for people changing through management training
programmes is not much better. They can rapidly lead to
disillusionment - managers spend a week hearing about the brave new
world but then return to the bleak unchanged reality.
And that is the problem - nothing is fundamentally changing.
The only way to achieve deep lasting change is to change the way the
organisation works. To change the processes. This is so basic to any
living, working organisation that it takes immense time and effort to
do and it has to be done with extreme care. But once done change is
certain and irreversible.
Our strategy had just two parts - empowerment and processes.
We set up a devolved management structure under which goals, and
targets within these goals, were communicated down the organisation
and the erstwhile holders of power - the functional departments such
as finance, personnel and contracts - were turned instead into
service functions who owe their existence only to the quality of the
services they provide.
We introduced a fundamental reform whereby everone's job is
determined only in terms of the projects he/she is currently engaged
on. The project management system busts the rigidities of the old
hierarchial system.
Devolution and empowerment on its own would have beeb a recipe for
chaos. The second and more difficult leg of the strategy must be
there as well - the development of the new processes. The vehicle we
used for our re-engineering was out Total Quality Proces (TQP)
TQP has involved re-examining everything we do in the organisation
starting from the Chief Executives desk and working down. All
processes in which we are involved are examined using a rigorous
input/output method. The senior management of the organisation were
tasked with defining the very top level processes in terms of a
business process diagram, which identified the inputs, outputs,
controls and resources on the processes. We identified that there was
only six key processes to the success of the business.
These top level processes were then broken down into individual
procedures which were then documented. But that was just the start -
they were then subject to rigorous validation by the end users via
workshops to check that the process would work , and to capitalise on
any best practice in the organisation. All processes ended with
standards against which operation of the process within the business
could be measured.
I can give you a practical example of the above in terms of HR
processes. One of the 6 top level processes started out at the very
early stage as being called People Management. After analysis of this
process in terms of inputs, outputs, etc. we realised that the
process we were describing was :
Manage Capability
In other words, we had to have common and effective procedures across
the organisation which ensured we had people with the
capability to deliver the business product.
This may seem a small point, but it was fundamental to how we
approached the second stage of defining the procedures which support
this top level process - We wrote processes about how to get the best
out of people rather than about how to control people.
By re-looking at everything we do according to the simple principles
of customer/supplier relationships we begin, with great difficulty,
to untangle the complex layers of bureaucracy that have been steadily
encrusting the organisation over the years. The answer is to manage
tasks through efficient value added processes rather than through
mindless bureaucratic procedures. And the key to that is for everyone
in the organisation to see their job not in terms of a post or a
role, but in terms of the outputs they are responsible for on behalf
of their customers. That then becomes extraordinarily fundamental
reform.
Project groups were established to define the procedures, and yes we
achieved the drafting, validation and implementation (including
support packages of guidance and training and software support)
within two years. All our procedures, guidance and electronic forms
are on our intranet.
Even with empowerment, new processes, and customer supplier chains,
rapid progress is not possible without reform in the way that you
manage, reward and invest in people - the manage capability
procedures have been improved to do just that.
In conclusion:
Yes, process re-engineering will achieve change, but only
if it is supported by other reforms.
Process re-engineering is a huge task and needs to be properly
resourced. Picking at the edges will not suffice.
Regards
Graham Kettles
Defence Evaluation Research Agency
UK
E- Mail:
nickprice@dera.gov.uk