Dear List,
I have come in very late in this discussion, but I think I have
somewhat of a grasp on the discussion thread and think I might be
able to contribute some idea's regarding BPR.
I missed the definition of BPR but I do recognize TQM, MBO and
MBWA..if it is similar, I believe I can shed some light here.
The root to most of these management styles began in Company's who
were simply trying to improve. It is hard to imagine, but at some
point all of these styles were concepts without names. What drove
most of these changes in management was a strong need, i.e. a
failing business, overwhelming competition, or in the case of most
successful Japanese management techniques - the fear of starvation
in a war torn country.
If the root of most of these management styles is imbedded in a
driving force for survival, this means to me, that those places
where these concepts were developed -had the "problems" long
before they had the "answers". Most likely they followed a PDCA
process - Plan, Do, Check, and Act. If this is true - they must
have first identified the specific problems that they had, planned
to make a change, made the change, checked the results, then
decided if the change was a good one or a bad one. In some
companies these changes failed miserably and those companies are
no longer in existance. For others - like Toyota - they made such
drastic improvements to the corporation as a whole and the bottom
line that they drew world-wide attention from other companies
wanting to know "what they did; why it worked".
Thinking that they may have found the easy answer to their
problems (what problems? -they couldn't tell you), many companies
borrow, steel, buy management techniques from other successful
companies and try to apply them to their current system without
any understanding of how their current systems works. "What's
good for the goose, must be good for the gander."
The development of the aspirin did wonders for a large portion of
the population with minor headache pain - but still has not cured
brain tumors. It is simple - not all headaches are the same
intensity, nor are they caused by the same reasons...therefore
what works for one patient cannot be applied to another without
some type of diagnostics.
Einstein said, "A problem cannot be solved by the same
consciousness that created it." Even if you are given the best
'tools' in the world - a change or improvement cannot take place
without first, a change in the thinking of the minds who created
the problem in the first place and a true understanding of what
those problems are and how they became the problems they are.
I have witnessed many companies who have paid large sums of money
to bring in new concepts or tools, including SPC, TPM, QOS, etc.
without making one change to their business culture - enveloped
within some very deep rooted paradigm's, assumptions and
misconceptions. Someone once said, "Everything is a PROCESS
within a SYSTEM". No process is successful if the system is not
in place to support it.
Let's take TPM, for example- in its most simplified state it is
Total Preventive Maintenance - meaning - schedule time to
maintenance machinery - don't wait until it breaks down for you to
pay attention to it! Simple, logical concept - yet, many
companies have tried it and failed, saying it was baloney, why?
Because they never looked at the Systems currently in place to
determine if they could support such a tool. Many companies have
so many scheduling problems, where they are running at capacity,
that they have put themselves into the position where they cannot
even schedule downtime for a machine to be maintenanced. So the
problem as they see it is that TPM doesn't work...not that
Scheduling needs fixed!
Take SPC (Statistical Process Control). Most major Japanese
companies have attributed their initial competitive advantage to
SPC. This drove a massive movement in the US to incorporate SPC
into American Manufacturing. Many companies failed in using this
tool, why? I think it is because they didn't take a look at their
current systems. Many American companies simply put out the
Control Charts and collected data...they had no vehicle in place
to analyze the data and take actions to correct problems.
So whatever BPR is - I have a hunch that the reason that it is not
successful in some companies is because of the above reasons,
summarized below:
1. No 'real' driving need for change.
2. No understanding of the Current Situation.
3. The perception that other company 'programs' can be assimilated
into your company without support systems in place.
4. No change in Management down through production in the
understanding of the tool.
5. No process such as PDCA to implement a new tool.
The successes that I have had in implementing tools borrowed from
other companies or cultures has been to never give it a name. To
simply get management to focus on the issues and problems and have
them Plan for improvement. I often coax, lead, imply, suggest
concepts and tools from other companies during this process
without identifying the 'name' 'source' or 'reference'. Later
while sitting in off-sight seminars, I will hear management teams
say, "Wow, this is a lot like what we are doing!" (ah-ha, no
kidding - it IS what you are doing - only you did what you did
because it made sense for you - not because it made sense for
THEM!)
Regardless of what we call these concepts - if they apply to our
current situation - they make sense.
Thanks for the airtime,
Rick Corcoran
Continuous Improvement Manager
Mark I
Excel Industries
INTERNET:"corcoranre@excelinc.com"