Discussion: View Thread

On 2 Nov 97 at 10:04, Jack Ring wrote:

> Please don't confuse the myriad problems of "managing the evolution of a
> business" with the simple question of whether Business Processes are being
> Re-engineered properly. Consider only BPR and tell me which Methodology is
> proven. Or does proven only mean "we have proven that you can't change our
> pet methodology?"

I suspect this is a very good question, and a very good point. One
problem with the "faddish" nature of management (the initial
movement, bpr,tqm) is that they assume at some level that what works
one place will work in another. Our understanding of change in
organizations is not sufficient at the psychological level to apply
templates...since each workplace, each relationship within the
workplace is perhaps not unique but close to it.

Sensible consultants seem to recognize this, so in fact there may not
be "proven methodologies" across the board.

Robert Bacal, Inst.For Cooperative Communication, rbacal@escape.ca
Visit our Resource Centre for articles on mgmt.,training,communication, and defusing hostility
at http://www.escape.ca/~rbacal (204) 888-9290
*Site Last Updated On Oct. 28, 1997*

On 2 Nov 97 at 15:45, Jack Ring wrote:

> Thanks for the ideas. At times I feel that I am not communicating clearly.
>
> The method for engineering the processes by which a business should respond
> to its demands is separable from the method by which executives should
> manage the evolution of a business. The two methods can be interrelated
> and integrated at the third level of Business Process (according to Prof.
> Starkerman or the Soft Systems crowd of Beer, Checkland and others).
> However, the BPR that is practiced in most places does not produce rational
> Level 1 models, let alone Level 2 or 3. I believe a BPE methodology can be
> put in place across the board. Further, if done right, the act of modeling
> and the resulting model will serve to forestall the majority of Resistance
> to Change that is so evident today.

I don't disagree at the level you are talking about. One thing I have
concluded, rightly or wrongly is that the "action" in organizational
change is at the person-to-person level, imbedded in the larger
systems. That's one reason why we can look at one failed attempt and
one successful attempt, seemingly using the same meta-strategies, and
not see the differences between them. The "doing it right" or doing
it wrong is at a very micro level, I think, and often hidden from
view.

It's like a recipe (not a great example). You and I can follow the
exact same recipe but get different results baking cakes. If mine is
terrible and yours great, is the recipe at fault? We could get around
this by having a recipe hundreds of pages long, I suppose. How would
we know it was a "good" recipe?



Robert Bacal, Inst.For Cooperative Communication, rbacal@escape.ca
Visit our Resource Centre for articles on mgmt.,training,communication, and defusing hostility
at http://www.escape.ca/~rbacal (204) 888-9290
*Site Last Updated On Oct. 28, 1997*

On Sat, 1 Nov 1997 07:35:42, Jim Massfeller wrote: In Defense Of BPR
>
>It was recently alleged that 80% of all BPR projects fail. Depending
>on who you ask, a failure rate between 50% and 80% is common. ---snip ---
and Jim went on to cite the ProSci web site recommendation that includes:

>> 4.Proven Methodology (that includes a vision process)

Would anyone please describe, or cite, a "proven methodology?"
Would the criteria for "proven" require that the methodology was used in
the successful and never in the unsuccessful?

There is no doubt you can be happy while looking like you are doing BPR's
-- if you never look up. But outside of bureauacracies (whose Vision
statements typically are really Hallucination statements applaudable only
by Timothy Leary) there is a different, competitive world.

Please don't confuse the myriad problems of "managing the evolution of a
business" with the simple question of whether Business Processes are being
Re-engineered properly. Consider only BPR and tell me which Methodology is
proven. Or does proven only mean "we have proven that you can't change our
pet methodology?"

Jack Ring
Innovation Management
32712 N. 70th St.
Scottsdale, AZ 85262-7143
602-488-4615

Thanks for the ideas. At times I feel that I am not communicating clearly.

The method for engineering the processes by which a business should respond
to its demands is separable from the method by which executives should
manage the evolution of a business. The two methods can be interrelated
and integrated at the third level of Business Process (according to Prof.
Starkerman or the Soft Systems crowd of Beer, Checkland and others).
However, the BPR that is practiced in most places does not produce rational
Level 1 models, let alone Level 2 or 3. I believe a BPE methodology can be
put in place across the board. Further, if done right, the act of modeling
and the resulting model will serve to forestall the majority of Resistance
to Change that is so evident today.

At 6:58 AM 11/2/97, Robert Bacal wrote:
>On 2 Nov 97 at 10:04, Jack Ring wrote:
>
>> Please don't confuse the myriad problems of "managing the evolution of a
>> business" with the simple question of whether Business Processes are being
>> Re-engineered properly. Consider only BPR and tell me which Methodology is
>> proven. Or does proven only mean "we have proven that you can't change our
>> pet methodology?"
>
>I suspect this is a very good question, and a very good point. One
>problem with the "faddish" nature of management (the initial
>movement, bpr,tqm) is that they assume at some level that what works
>one place will work in another. Our understanding of change in
>organizations is not sufficient at the psychological level to apply
>templates...since each workplace, each relationship within the
>workplace is perhaps not unique but close to it.
>
>Sensible consultants seem to recognize this, so in fact there may not
>be "proven methodologies" across the board.
>
>Robert Bacal, Inst.For Cooperative Communication, rbacal@escape.ca
>Visit our Resource Centre for articles on mgmt.,training,communication,
>and defusing hostility
>at http://www.escape.ca/~rbacal (204) 888-9290
>*Site Last Updated On Oct. 28, 1997*

Jack Ring
Innovation Management
32712 N. 70th St.
Scottsdale, AZ 85262-7143
602-488-4615

Eric Abrahamson made a point sometime ago in AMR in reply to comments on
his fads article. I think it is a valid one. As he said (and I
interpreted), we cannot stop managers from going for fads. But our job
is not to criticize them for being taken in by the fads but explain this
"fad" to them in a way that they appreciate both sides --postiive and
negative- of the issue. So, I think one way to make them appreciate BPR
is to be better communicators ourselves in the first instance. Secondly,
we need to use available tools such as J.D. Thompson's classic work as
well as change theory and inject it into BPR in a way that managers
understand with reference to their context. We , of course, also need
to integrate this stuff.

It is our failure to communicate the classic theories (honestly we
should not expect Thompson to not only have conceived but also
articulate in lay language all theories, although I suspect he would
have done a better job than most of us) that resulted in fads; it is
not the consultant or witch doctor's evil design.
N. Rao Kowtha
Department of Organisational Behavior
Faculty of Business Administration
National University of Singapore
10 Kent Ridge Crescent
Singapore 119260, Singapore
Tel: (65) 8743049
Fax: (65) 775 5571



-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Bacal [SMTP:rbacal@ESCAPE.CA]
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 1997 9:59 PM
Subject: Re: Happy BPRing

On 2 Nov 97 at 10:04, Jack Ring wrote:

> Please don't confuse the myriad problems of "managing the
evolution of a
> business" with the simple question of whether Business
Processes are being
> Re-engineered properly. Consider only BPR and tell me which
Methodology is
> proven. Or does proven only mean "we have proven that you
can't change our
> pet methodology?"

I suspect this is a very good question, and a very good point.
One
problem with the "faddish" nature of management (the initial
movement, bpr,tqm) is that they assume at some level that what
works
one place will work in another. Our understanding of change in
organizations is not sufficient at the psychological level to
apply
templates...since each workplace, each relationship within the
workplace is perhaps not unique but close to it.

Sensible consultants seem to recognize this, so in fact there
may not
be "proven methodologies" across the board.

Robert Bacal, Inst.For Cooperative Communication,
rbacal@escape.ca
Visit our Resource Centre for articles on
mgmt.,training,communication, and defusing hostility
at http://www.escape.ca/~rbacal (204) 888-9290
*Site Last Updated On Oct. 28, 1997*