BPR OnLine Learning Center Series

Return to HOME

Managing Barriers to Business Reengineering Success

by Wolf D. Schumacher

CHAPTER 3

BARRIERS TO

BUSINESS REENGINEERING

IMPLEMENTATION SUCCESS

One of the biggest mistakes you can make in life is to accept

the known and resist the unknown. You should, in fact, do exactly

the opposite. Challenge the known and embrace the unknown.

Guy Kawasaki, Co-Founder Apple Computer, Inc., 1996

3.1. Potential Project Implementation Success

The success of Business Reengineering projects is measured by the real attainment of project objectives. Companies undertaking Business Reengineering projects typically look for drastic improvements in business process results.

A recent study of Business Reengineering projects in 30 Mexican businesses all from the largest 500 businesses in Mexico demonstrated impressive results (Table 3.1./1). Business Reengineering had impacted mainly in management cost (82 %), production cost (57%) and distribution cost (39%) reductions (Lozano, 1996).

Table 3.1./1 Achievements of Thirty Business Reengineering Projects

3.2. Risks Associated With Business Reengineering Projects

The flip side of high success potentials is high project risk. Thus the success of Business Reengineering projects is largely dependent on the knowledgeable management of Business Reengineering project risk factors. Table 3.1./2 categorizes these risks (Clemons/Thatcher/Row, 1995).

Table 3.2./1 Business Reengineering Project Risk Categories

3.3. Business Reengineering Implementation Barriers

Barriers are severe, unexpected and not planned for problems in Business Reengineering projects. Barriers increase the impact of project risk factors. For example increases middle management resistance against the objective of introducing self-directed work teams the political project risk.

Barriers hinder implementation efforts such that without intervention the project falters or may even fail altogether. There are other problems which are not considered barriers, because their impact on the project is not as dramatic. They may present obstacles to overcome on a day-to-day basis. These problems may surface in most other organizational projects as well. Among them are illness of project members, malfunction of computer equipment, etc. These problems are not further considered in this report.

Barriers have to be eliminated, because they take away much needed energy from the project team and the people affected. The energy for and against the barrier is not injected into the project steps and thus is lost to the project`s outcome. It is the author´s experience that endless meetings, and associated frustrations detriment the potential positive results of a Business Reengineering project. Therefore it is highly recommendable not to pitch success factors hard against barriers, but rather to prevent the development of barriers right from the beginning of a project. It is not advisable to perform a Business Reengineering project on high pro and contra energy consumption basis.

The Case of a Business Reengineering Project Failure

1. The Company

PubliCorp (a pseudonym) was a large civil engineering organisation owned by a local government in Brazil. The organization was initially established to act as an inspection body, and later to supply the high demand from the government for construction services. PubliCorp held a monopoly in its field. A threat, though, started to emerge. It came from the deregulation in the construction industry. The prospect of deregulation called for a radical re-thinking and reengineering of PubliCorp`s structure and business processes.

2. The Project

PubliCorp hired two large consulting companies to join forces in two project teams. One team (OR) tackled the redesign of processes and structure, the other team (IT) was assigned the task of setting up a new Information Technology infrastructure, based on the redesign recommendations of the OR team. The centralization of information systems in the central data processing department (CPD) was one of the problems identified. CPD served as a bottleneck to the many departments processing public bids and coordinating construction projects. The OR and IT teams decided to tackle this problem by downsizing applications from the CPD mainframe to a local area network. This was done within six months despite PublCorp`s staff had been incited by CPD and union members to boycott the new applications. The OR team had its work to re-engineer the core processes considerably hindered by the opposition. The team analyzed and and modeled several processes with difficulty, which added uncertainty to the subsequent changes. Additionally, two pilot redesign attempts failed in the implementation phase, mainly due to lack of interest from staff. Another problem faced was that some redesign proposals foundered on regulations established by law. The process of setting up public bids for example, was analyzed and redesigned several times. Only slight changes in the process could really be implemented, without making the process prone to be contested by lawyers representing companies that had lost bids to others. Four years after it had started, the reengineering attempt was hailed as a successful Business Reengineering project by some, including the CEO, who believed he had taken over an old-fashioned organisation and turned it with the help of Information Technology into a modern one. Others regarded the attempt as a failure from a reengineering perspective. No radical changes had been effected, the total investment being US$ 8 Million. Staff had not been reduced, despite that the number of construction contracts granted to PubliCorp had been reduced. This meant that even the increase in efficiency achieved in some processes, would not be really materialized.

3. Why did this Business Reengineering Attempt Fail ?

The first reason was the leveling, by PubliCorp`s CEO, of political interests with objective goals. The second was the gradual shift of the focus of the OR team from core Business Reengineering to problem solving and automating existing processes. The third reason was the hiding of failure signs. This happened consciously at first, for self-preservation. Later, though, this became unconscious and was reinforced by social facilitation (Kock/McQueen/Baker, 1996).

The above case of a „successful failure" demonstrates several barriers and underlying reasons, which are subject of the remainder of this report. The author differentiates barriers to Business Reengineering implementation success into hard and soft barriers. Figure 3.3./1 classifies soft and hard barriers along with areas which contain root causes for barriers to Business Reengineering implementation success.

Figure 3.3./1 Relationships Between Potential Barriers and

Potential Causes of Barriers

3.3.1. Hard Implementation Barriers

Hard barriers are those, which have to do with things and regulations. Soft barriers are people problems. Hard barriers can be further broken into Information Technology problems, resource problems and legal obstacles.

Information Technology software and hardware, which are not suited to support a process based organization can evolve as a barrier. This barrier is typical for organizations that want to keep their high investments in hardware and software, hoping that the existing legacy systems will serve the process requirements as well. The Information Technology suppliers on the other hand where overwhelmed by the run for process oriented solution and have only just recently directed their research and product development towards process based Information Technology solutions. A number of vendors though have not been able to protect their investments and faltered.

One typical resource problem is missing space for a work team to get together on a regular basis. Team-members, that are physically separated should have easy access to electronic communication equipment, such as teleconferencing.

Legal obstacles can turn out to be severe barriers, not only in Brasil. In Germany various federal and state regulations hinder several Business Reengineering projects. For example is the Siemens corporation not able to reap as much success from its reorganization efforts as it originally planned for, because work-place regulations do not support work time flexibility (Siemens, 1996).

3.3.2. Soft Implementation Barriers

Soft barriers are people problems. People resist organizational changes. Resistance to Business Reengineering change can be further differentiated into internal individual resistance, internal group resistance and external resistance. Depending on the viewpoint, there are two possible viewpoints, one can look at resistance:

Type A Resistance against Business Reengineering Implementation

Resistance of type A describes resistance against reasonable thinking and actions. From the perspective of the initiators and the project team, affected people demonstrate type A resistance (Brem-Gräser, 1993).

Managers need to be aware of the four most common reasons, people resist organizational change. These include: a desire not to loose something of value, a misunderstanding of the change and its implications, a belief that the change does not make sense in the organization, and a low tolerance for change (Kotter/Schlesinger, 1979).

Type B Resistance against Business Reengineering Implementation

Resistance of type B describes resistance against indoctrination and power usage. Affected people don`t call themselves resisters and consider their resistance mostly as of type B. Resistance is an indirect way for subordinates to say NO to change (Nevis, 1987).

Often initiators and project team member consider resistance as a necessary evil: „No change without resistance" and „Innovations represent a history of resistance" Yet experience tells us, that people resist change most, when they haven't been asked. Put in simple terms, when they haven't been told, how the change is going to take place, and how they personally will be affected by the change. This is too often overlooked by management.

Internal individual resistance describes people behavior in the organization not accepting the project contents and/or management. This may take covert or overt forms. It is common practice that management shortcuts individual resistance with destructive personality explanations, instead of checking for underlying reasons for resisting behavior. Further down we will analyze some reasons for individual resisting behavior.

Internal group resistance describes group behavior within the organization. These groups can be formally or informally organized. A group of electronic specialists for example may resist the plan of being split up into work teams where they have work side by side with mechanical personnel. They consider their status superior to the mechanics status.

External resistance is being performed by people outside the organization. Customers, suppliers, the public may develop considerable resistance against plans which interfere with their interests. If a train company for example plans to replace service personnel with teller machines, this might cause severe resistance by the customers.

3.3.3. Relationships Between Hard and Soft Barriers

It is not always possible to differentiate precisely between hard and soft barriers. Consider the following example:

An application software package for material procurement may take more than two minutes response time for placing an order online. When the package was selected, two second in average had been expected and written into the contract with the software supplier. The supplier explains that the attainment of a two second response will not be possible, or if made technically possible, will cost an additional huge amount of money. The budget for this software addition is not available. The purchasers therefore don't want the software package to be implemented for live operation.

The analysis of this problem shows, that the purchasers had an enormous flexibility before the software age. There were no restrictions whatsoever regarding their handling of purchase orders. They find that a purchasing software potentially puts too many restrictions to their free decision making process. In reality it is not the transaction response time they don't accept, it is their objection against the idea of introducing Information Technology altogether. Definitely not a hard barrier, but a soft barrier. Obviously it doesn't make sense to pour more money into the software. Instead the resistance has to be overcome.

The opposite can be true as well. A soft barrier might be in reality a hard barrier in disguise. Consider the following example:

The project plan of implementing self-directed assembly teams at a machine manufacture asks electric and mechanic assemblers to work together closely. It is also required from the teams, that mechanics perform some electronical tasks, vice versa. Many employees do not accept that, they want to stay by what they have learned. They resist the implementation of self-directed work teams. The project manager is planning punishing actions against this form of alleged resistance, yet oversees, that hard barriers prevent people from performing: Mechanics cannot turn into electricians over night. They have to properly trained in the basics of electrical assembly tasks. The soft barrier in reality is a hard barrier.

3.4. Areas Generating Barriers to Business Reengineering Implementation

All barriers to Business Reengineering implementation success are the result of underlying root causes. Sometimes these root causes are not self-evident. This is the reason, why barriers are being attacked head-on, only to find out later, that the underlying problems have not been purged and the barriers keep on building up. Therefore it seems necessary to study the areas for potential root causes of barriers to Business Reengineering implementation success in sufficient detail.

The following areas are suspicious of generating barriers to Business Reengineering implementation success:

3.4.1. Project Related Causes

The Business Reengineering project setup may lead to barriers, which have to be dealt with. Project contents and project management can be of such nature, that both hard and soft barriers evolve.

Project contents are represented by project objectives, the selected business processes and the introduction of new Information Technology. The project contents may lead to considerable resistance and hard barriers. For example did employees of a sales organization at Newark airport resist against the implementation of new Point-of-Sales terminals at the airport, because they feared the loss of jobs (CIO, 1996). A typical example for a hard barrier would be the selection of a functional oriented software package to support new processes. The project contents are particularly the source of many barriers, when the haven't been properly and understandably defined.

Project management can be a source of severe barriers, if the road to travel by, remains unclear to the people affected. If confusion reigns, doubt and sometimes fear develops. Doubt and fear lead to failing projects, because people who doubt or fear, do not take action towards attaining the project objectives. Not recognizing people's issues in project management leads to project failure.

In a number of Business Reengineering projects external consultants are being involved. These often have different attitudes, values and use different methods as their resp. client-system. These differences may yield considerable resistance: „He is not one of us". On the opposite, if a consultant tries to adapt intimately to the client's culture and be part of the system, she may cause resistance, because she offers not much innovative tension. This is the same situation, internal consultants may get into. Yet, there is no perfect answer to the client-relationship in a Business Reengineering setting. Each relationship is different and has to be established both by the consultant and management in a subtle way. What may never happen, though, is a consultant functioning as a manipulation tool towards members of the organization.

3.4.2. People Related Causes

People affected by the organizational change are the richest source of potential barriers. This is true for people on all levels in an organization. Managers may resist a change, which jeopardizes their job, workers may fear unemployment by being replaced through a computer system, etc. People's behavior is based on their personality and norms of the groups they belong to.

Some top-managers/owners believe that operative people are the worst resisters, yet this is mostly not the case. Managers often resist change more intensively, because sometimes having sacrificed their lives (and that of their family) to their jobs, they have a lot to loose. Thus, many managers in Business Reengineering situations pay lip service to the change, but behave in old autocratic ways, to not suffer any personal drawbacks from the change. Workers in contrast, mostly want to be told, what is exactly expected from them. They typically do not play with words, and do not engage in micropolitics, as opposed to many managers.

3.4.3. Organization Related Causes

The organizational structure may cause barriers by being inflexible towards a drastic change in operations. In particular large bureaucratic organizations tend to wither changes which potentially destroy the existing structure. The embedded culture of the organization is another reservoir for potential barriers, in that culture unconsciously influences the thinking, decisions and actions of people working in a given company. Thus culture may dictate inability to escape the past, and inability to invent the future (Hamel/Prahalad, 1994). A number of Business Reengineering efforts derail because the strategic context in which the project was positioned changed significantly - rendering the new process design worthless (Nadler/Shaw/Walton, 1995).

3.4.4. Environment Related Causes

The environment of an organization, which is undertaking a Business Reengineering project may yield barriers to implementation success, by withstanding through the means of laws, regulations, and public resistance. The organization's business partners , i.e. vendors and customers, may resist consciously or unconsciously the objectives and contents of a Business Reengineering project the organization undertakes. Lastly the environment may rapidly change in a way, that makes the Business Reengineering project redundant.

3.5. Examples for Root Causes to Implementation Barriers

Figure 3.3./1 shows the relationships between potential barriers to Business Reengineering implementation success and areas, which hold causes of these barriers. The relationship between barrier and underlying cause are not one on one, but rather several root causes may yield one particular barrier. Vice versa, one root cause may yield several barriers of different nature. We will not cover all relationships between potential barriers and root causes. Using Information Technology barriers and individual resistance as examples, we will explore several root causes. The root cause analysis process presented can easily be applied to other barriers and the root cause domains of individual, groups, organization and environment.

3.5.1. Root Causes to Information Technology Barriers

Information Technology is an important enabler of Business Reengineering. Only through the introduction of Information Technology, innovative business processes become available. Consider the case of a virtual bookstore. Customer related processes would not be possible without using the capabilities of the world-wide-web. On the other hand, Information Technology can has the potential to evolve as a barrier to Business Reengineering implementation. Information Technology barriers represent severe problems with the Information Technology infrastructure (hardware, software and networking). These problems typically emerge in the implementation phase of Business Reengineering projects. Table 3.5.1./1 shows typical Information Technology barriers and root causes.

Table 3.5.1./1 Typical Root Causes to Information Technology Barriers

Barrier 1: Selected Software-Solutions are not Process-Oriented

Example Manufact Inc.

1. Situation

Manufact Inc. produces and sells custom plastic injection machines. The company starts a Business Reengineering project. The main objective is to increase customer satisfaction by setting up self-directed work teams. These work teams are responsible for the delivery of plastic injection machines of high quality, low cost and fast delivery speed. The teams are supplied with an application software package meant to help in performing the new processes better than in the past. The chief information officer of the company selected the package, based on recommendations of other manufacturing companies.

2. Barrier

The Team, being responsible for the whole process from customer inquiry to delivery, compares the software functionality with the process steps it has defined. The team finds out that processing an order from start to finish requires more than eighty terminal transactions. Filling out ten different screen templates alone are required for defining a new customer order. Additionally the team finds out that the software cannot be configured to support the whole process they are responsible for. The team concludes that the software must have been developed for a different than a process oriented environment.

Underlying causes can be looked for in the areas of project content, project management, and partner (supplier) responsibility:

Root Cause 1: Unsatisfactory Selection Process

The software selection process may involve errors of project content and project management. Content errors are given, if it had not been properly defined, what criteria the software should adhere to. Among the criteria for process oriented software are workgroup computing and database-integration requirements (Tapscott/Caston, 1993). A typical error in project management was, that the selection process was not properly performed. A proper selection would have required from the vendor to respond to the process related criteria. Instead the company purchased the software based on the recommendation of another company. This company's organization and requirements could have been different.

Root Cause 2: Delivery Problems

Depending on the correctness of the RFP (request for proposal) which the company send to the software supplier, the supplier eager to book a much needed new software order, could have promised software functionality which in reality was not there. The company lost time and money by concentrating on a software not suited to their process needs.

Barrier 2: Users Do not Accept System

Example Media Partners

1. Situation

Media Partners produce print-media clippings. They observe German and Swiss papers and magazines on a daily basis, using key words provided by their customers. The company employs ninety readers that scan the print media, as well as ten clippers, that clip the traced articles with scissors. Forty percent of their income is based on the number of clippings they produce monthly. All clippings are sent to the customers by mail on a daily or weekly basis. All business processes are done manually. Media Partners plan to change that. They plan to introduce Information Technology to support the reading process and replace the manual clipping process through an electronic clipping service. The company expects additional revenue by setting up an externally searchable clipping database.

2. Barrier

After the first training hours with the new Information Technology equipment the readers find that they will be less productive with the computer. They fear their income will decrease. The clippers fear to loose their jobs.

Underlying causes can be looked for in the areas of project content, project management, people, organization and public.

Root Cause 1: Wrong Information Technology Configuration

The Information Technology Configuration can be faulty. For example too large keyboards could hinder the process of fast reading papers and keying in at the same time. The terminal dialogue could be too slow or too cumbersome. The hardware and network processes could be too slow or not be able to handle the workload. The system might not allow all readers to work in parallel with the new system.

Root Cause 2: Not Enough Test-Runs

A completely new computer application system has to be tested thoroughly (Lullies/Bollinger/Weltz, 1990). Volume-tests, performance-tests and availability-tests have too be planned for carefully. It is necessary to test the entire process. It might well be, that the readers are not satisfied, yet other affected personnel are happy with the new system. The overall results are important.

Root Cause 3: Knowledge and Skill Level Too Low

Missing knowledge and skills regarding computers and computer applications might be severe reasons for non-acceptance. In particular older people might be afraid to touch the keyboard since the fear to demonstrate their missing computer skills to the younger ones. It is necessary to take away fear by thoroughly explaining the new system to all those affected. Also ample room should be given for unsupervised training sessions.

Root Cause 4: Resistance

Resistance may develop out of missing knowledge or skills. Some people believe that the introduction of new technology is always accompanied by resistance. This may or may not be true, since new technology is often accompanied by curiosity for the new. Connor/Lake trace people's resistance to a lack of understanding, a missing will to accept the change and missing skills (see root cause 3) or resources to carry out the change (Connor/Lake, 1994).

Root Cause 5: Micropolitics

Micpropolitics describe power-games in an organization. The introduction of a new information technology often changes the complex power structure in an organization (Lullies/Bollinger/Weltz, 1990). This is particularly true for organizations undertaking global Business Reengineering projects, such as Media Partners. Experienced readers may fear to lose the seniority status to younger, more efficient colleagues.

Root Cause 6: Mistrust

If the system is accessible from outside the organization, people within the organization may mistrust the system. Media Partners plan to have her customers to access the clipping database. Errors may immediately be traced back to the individual reader. There is a potential for mistrust.

Barrier 3: Decentralization not attainable

Example Trading Inc.

1. Situation

Trading Inc. plans to replace its centralized information management system by a decentral client/server solution. The objective is to give more responsibilities to their store managers. They are expected to operate as if they were owners of their stores. This is very different from current processes, where store managers receive direct orders and close supervision from Trading Inc. headquarters. For example did the central marketing department decide about local pricing by downloading article prices to the store PC`s. Now it is expected that store managers fix their own local prices and improve profitability at the same time.

2. Barrier

182 stores are switched over to the new decentralized system. It is planned to have the old centralized system in operation as long as the new client/server system is not up and running. During implementation a large number of store managers claim that the new system is not properly thought through. They maintain to having not enough time anymore to pursue their original job of increasing local sales. They express concerns that headquarters puts more pressure on them by assigning more clerical work to the stores. Trading Inc´s top management considers putting a hold to the project.

Underlying causes can be looked for in the areas of project content, people, and culture.

Root Cause 1: Vague Project Goals

The project has not been properly explained to the store managers. They believe to be forced to take additional load on to their daily work-load. Top management did not share the real intentions with the store-managers. These call for more individual freedom for decision-making, more opportunities for personal development, etc. If the store managers knew the real project objectives, they would actively pursue project activities on their part.

Root Cause 2: Missing Discipline

In the past, the store managers were always told what to do. Expect from keeping the store operations moving, keeping the store clean and care about personnel, they had no major decisions to take. The new decentralization concept requires more openness from them, more risk taking, more involvement, more training, and more teaching. Those store managers, who are not accustomed to organizational changes of that nature miss the discipline necessary to make the project a success.

Root Cause 3: Strong Control Culture

The Business Reengineering project requires a new culture within Trading Inc. Away from the strong centralized bureaucracy, with the virtue of efficient decisions and operations towards a more collaborative culture, with the virtue of situational decision making based on local customer care. There is a large difference between both types of culture (Schneider, 1994). The store managers may think that headquarters will not really make the move and will eventually return to law and order thinking and practices. So they may think it is not worth the effort to get too heavily involved in the project. It might even be dangerous for one's own career within the company, once the old control culture will be reestablished.

3.5.2. Some Root Causes of Internal Individual Resistance

The second area we are looking at is individual resistance (of type A) against project contents and project management. Next to Information Technology problems, this area is most often mentioned by practitioners when asked for Business Reengineering Implementation problems. It is also the area of most wrong decisions within a Business Reengineering project. When asked to give a reason for individual resistance, managers responsible for effective Business Reengineering, often act as lay psychologists by reading people´s character as being too rigid or too negative. On the other hand, affected people act the same: „This manager will never be able to change himself". often prevail misunderstandings and prejudices. There is ample room for improvement in changing the views of project teams and people affected in the organization regarding one another. Table 3.5.2./1 shows typical individual resistance and underlying causes. We will discuss these relationships.

Table 3.5.2./1 Typical Root Causes of Individual Resistance

Firstly, individual resistance can be broadly differentiated into constructive and destructive resistance to Business Reengineering success. Constructive resistance is always positive towards the objectives of the project. Yet there is resistance against the ways and means, and sometimes people´s behavior, who run the project. Destructive resistance is meant to stop the project. Both types of resistance can be overt or covert. Open means, one can hear and see the resistance. Covert means, the resistance is not noticeable from the outside. Definitely dangerous for the success of a Business Reengineering project is covert destructive resistance, particularly in tense implementation situations.

Figure 3.5.2./1 shows five roles associated with resisting behavior.

Figure 3.5.2./1 Five Roles of Resisting Behavior

• The Behavior of the Critic

The critic communicates openly and demonstrates constructive behavior towards the project goals. She is not in line with various aspects of the project approach. She adds ideas to the project contents. Critics are valuable individuals for the projects successful outcome. It is important that the project initiator and the project team take the critic into close consideration.

• The Behavior of the Skeptic

The skeptic demonstrates a similar behavior to the critic. She does not tell everybody though. She is doubtful about various aspects of the project content and project management, yet talks only when asked. She is a valuable source of ideas towards the projects outcome.

• The Behavior of the Terrorist

The Terrorist seems to constantly warn everybody regarding a negative outcome of the project. She demonstrates openly her distaste of the project objectives and the way the project is run. Often the terrorist announces her own actions against the project. These should be taken seriously, since in all likelihood the terrorist makes her announcement true (Watzlawik, 1976).

• The Behavior of the Saboteur

The saboteur demonstrates an extremely negative behavior. Communication is overt. The project team has to carefully watch out for saboteurs. Saboteurs should have no chance to covertly destroy the outcome of the Business Reengineering project. Typically only very few people turn out to be saboteurs.

• The Behavior of the Undecided

The undecided does not show clear signals of being covert or overt, constructive or destructive. That makes this behavior dangerous to the projects outcome. When the project turns to the positive side though, the undecided tend to be constructive.

Barrier 1: Constructive Resistance

Both overt and covert constructive resistance can be traced back to the domains of project management, the individual person and the culture of the organization.

Root Cause 1: Project Management Approach

Constructive behavior of affected people is very much based on the way, the project is being managed. If the project team asks for openness and behaves itself in a way that people can communicate without fear, than it may be expected that people freely discuss their thoughts about the projects content.

Root Cause 2: Personalities of People Affected by the Project

Well educated non-destructive personalities, mostly express themselves in ways that truly help a projects outcome. People are often known for their character. They seem to be not easy, yet valuable members of the organization.

Root Cause 3: Former Experiences

Former experiences with organizational projects forms the behavior of people. If the experience is negative, than the behavior towards the new Business Reengineering project may be negative. If the experience was positive, the behavior towards the project is positive. Thus the behavior of new people to the organization may collide with behavior of incumbents. Former success may breed resistance in a way that people believe there is no need for change.

Barrier 2: Destructive Behavior

Both overt and covert destructive resistance can be traced back to the domains of project content, project management, the individual person, the groups, and the structure of the organization, which affects the culture in turn, and the public.

Root Cause 1: Project Objectives

The approach the project team is taking, decides to a large extent about the development of destructive behavior. If the project objectives do not take the people side into consideration, and solely push the project towards technological goals, destructive behavior evolves as a consequence. Psychologically people resist against objectives they do not accept as their own. Therefore it is necessary to align personal goals with the project goals. This is particularly true for those Business Reengineering projects which are set up to downsize the organization.

Root Cause 2: Missing Change Momentum

A Business Reengineering project changes the way a company operates on a daily basis. This change forces everybody affected to change her working style. As long as the working style is considered new, management has to keep pressure, to keep the change momentum up. If this is not the case, there is a tendency to go back to the old style.

Root Cause 3:. Destructive Personality

Managers of Business Reengineering projects explain destructive behavior often with alleged destructive personality. Yet, as psychotherapist Erich Fromm pointed out, while on the one hand destructive behavior is increasing in the world of today, on the other hand, only a minority of people has a destructive personality. He claims it is the society, which for a large part is responsible for destructive actions, people take (Fromm, 1973). Society can allow destructive personalities under the „right" circumstances. Therefore, before a person is accused of having a destructive personality, it should be checked, whether circumstances in the organization support destructive behavior.

Root Cause 4: Group Pressure

Group pressure may yield destructive behavior. Group norms may force the group member to behave destructively, even if as an individual, the group member would have behaved otherwise.

Root Cause 5: Loss of Power over People

People, who lose power over people, may react with destructive actions. For example lost a supervisor power, with the introduction of self-directed work teams. He reacted by covertly sabotaging the team's working results. It is necessary to give the person a new role with a new responsibility, that is not to be identified with a loss of power.

Root Cause 6: Loss of Acceptance

Often the loss of power over people is a loss of status in the world outside the work-place. This feeling of loss by the affected person can influence her decisions and actions in destructive ways.

3.6. Conclusion

Business Reengineering is an approach to organizational renewal, that begins with customer needs and then moves to the work itself (Nadler/Shaw/Walton, 1995). As a result it tends to take a reductionist approach, in that proponents of Business Reengineering may believe, everything else (structure, culture, people's behavior and motivation) will fall in place, once the reengineering has been done. This engineering mentality offers tremendous benefits through crisp and clear cut application of logic to the design of business processes, but also has a down side.

A large majority of Business Reengineering efforts begin with the redesign of processes and focus on the people side (members of the organization and customers likewise) only to the extent needed to ensure that the technical design can be implemented by humans. This is the same technically oriented approach to change, that Frederic Taylor and his disciples used to implement mass manufacturing at the turn of the century (Schumacher, 1996). Table 3.6./1 shows typical elements of this traditional approach to Business Reengineering.

Manager`s Beliefs and Assumptions

• I believe change is linear. A leads to B, B leads to C.
• I can plan and control all aspects of change.
• I see change as a rational and objective process.
• Emotional and personal issues should play no part in organizational change.
• If it`s my idea, it must be good.

Typical Management Behaviors

• Uses default strategies such as the use of power, manipulation, and deal making in an attempt to influence or make people go along.
• Avoids emotional and personal issues, so misses the message of resistance.

Probable Results

• If support is needed for the change, there is a strong likelihood that it will fail.

Table 3.6./1 Traditional Approach to Business Reengineering

The management of barriers, in particular regarding resistant behavior, is a new task that should complement the management of Business Reengineering implementation projects. The traditional approach to the management of barriers within Business Reengineering projects, masterminded by a top-down attitude to „people problems", has to give way to a Change Management oriented approach of recognizing people's valid concerns. Processes, systems, and structures can be adjusted mechanistically, but it`s people who are the critical success factor in making the new business processes work (Burlton, 1995).

Therefore it is necessary to review the people and culture oriented Change Management literature for intervention models, applicable to Business Reengineering projects. In Chapter 6 we will incorporate the findings in a framework of barrier management, that should be added to or replace the linear and technically oriented traditional approaches to Business Reengineering project management.

Related Reengineering Resources

Reengineering Best Practices
Reengineering Toolkits and Document Templates
Business Process Reengineering Implementation
Change Management Strategies and Action Planning
Process Management and Improvement

Send questions to bpr@prosci.com

HOME

ProSci is a registered trademark of the Quality Leadership Center, Inc.