Fred (and others),
That is exactly what I'm driving at. In my opinion there is only one
thing worse than calling BPR (and TQM and MBO and MBWA and all the rest)
'Fads', and that is to treat them as 'Fads' which is what a lot of
people do.
"Oh my," they say. "Here comes another management 'Fad'. I supposed we'd
better give it a try!" They do this to keep the fadists/senior
management/HR people happy who will hopefully go away and leave them
alone to get on with the job they think they were hired to do. Little do
they know that many of them, especially those who have been in their job
for some time, are no longer being paid to do the job they were hired to
do, they are being paid to do whatever the job can become in the
interests of the changing needs and goals of the organisation. And it is
up to them to make the job whatever the organisation wants that job to
be - not simply what they are prepared to make it. If they don't have
the competencies (read skills standards) to do this then perhaps we
could be looking at where most organisational problems lay.
Anyone who follows Dilbert will see exactly what happens in most
organisations. Like the Yes Minister series the truth is so funny, but
it is also so true. The 'Fad' gets handed down to the lowest
under-employed manager who may or may not become an expert in it but who
inevitably gets transferred (or transfers him/herself) to another job
leaving the 'Fad' to wallow in its own instability. And in the end
senior management say: "Oh that! We tried it once and it didn't
work...." or employees say "Uh hoh! Here comes another one!!"
I think we should stop blaming the cure for not working and start having
a closer look at how we diagnose the symptoms in the first place. If
management - and their consultant groups - are incapable of seeing where
and how such ideas as BPR might work, or if they are incapable of making
such ideas work then perhaps this is another symptom of the problem.
Thanks again Fred.
PHIL RUTHERFORD
fred nickols wrote:
>
> Phil Rutherford posted a very interesting set of comments about BPR,
> closing with the following:
>
> "While I'm not a fanatic about BPR per se, in fact my ideals come from a
> different direction but aimed at providing the skills and knowledge to
> allow the organisation to adopt its own BPR, I believe that it was never
> designed to be run under old-fashioned management. It will never work,
> in my opinion and experience, if it is not supported by changed values,
> visions and attitudes. This is very scary for most managers I'll admit,
> but those who can't/won't change are very likely the reason why the
> organisation needs such processes in the first place.
>
> If the prophets of BPR have serious doubts about the way in which their
> words are being translated and applied then it is no wonder that the
> spectators are also confused and less than enthusiastic about continuing
> the ministry."
>
> If what Phil is driving at it that you can't simply reengineer the
> "surface" processes (e.g., order fulfillment) but you must also reengineer
> the "deep structure" processes (e.g., decision-making, resource allocation,
> etc.), then I'm inclined to agree with him -- within limits. Those limits
> are as follows. If you want to wring out maximum improvement from surface
> structure processes without tampering with the deep structure processes,
> then do that. However, if you want more improvement than can be obtained
> within that limit, then you'll have to change the deep structure processes,
> too.
>
> Fred Nickols, Executive Director
> Strategic Planning & Management Services
> Educational Testing Service, Mail Stop 09-C
> Princeton, NJ 08541
> Tel = 609.734.5077
> Fax = 609.734.5590
> e-mail =
fnickols@ets.org