1.      Definitions of process re-engineering

Hammer and Champy (2001) referred to process change as re-engineering. Davenport (1993) suggested that change management is a combination of both process innovation and improvement. Kotter (1995) said that not managing change is effective but the leading of it. In a sense, although their terminology is different, these authors refer to the same kind of troubles, challenges, and methods for being successful in making changes to the organizational strategies, methods of selling, methods of production, distributing, and collecting.

Hammer and Champy (2001) said about re-engineering:

“If your customers’ demand for your product increases your own demand for labor, then wages will rise. Because companies have been reengineering, they can maintain profit margins in the face of declining prices and avoid increasing their workforces when confronted with escalating demand” (p3).

In other words, according to Hammer and Champy (2001), the customers are the ultimate drivers for change requirements in the organizational processes. The ultimate matter of process effectiveness is the competitive advantage. When the competitor’s products are better and cost less, and are available on the market, then the customers will tend to be drawn to these products over others.

            In order to become competitive, meaning to be able to lower prices and increase quality, the organizational processes have to be “reengineered”, said Hammer and Champy (2001). This could be the realigning of the sequence of process steps, eliminating some steps, or assigning process steps to specialized individuals or groups. Of course, as will be discussed in a following section of this paper, there are consequences to the human side of the organizational reengineering.

Kotter (1995) asked about leading change “…why would an intelligent person rely too much on simple, linear, analytical processes? Because he or she has been taught to manage but not to lead.” Leading change is about inspiring followers of a vision that grabs hold of their desires to want something else or even better. A leader of change affixes a vision onto his followers that creates a sense of urgency among them. To the other hand, a manager focuses on the performance of specific tasks and the logistics behind the resource availability at the right time for the right process step (p25).

 

1.1.What is process reengineering?

Kotter’s (2002) definition of Process reengineering is as following:

“…useful change tends to be associated with a multi-step process that creates power and motivation sufficient to overwhelm all the sources of inertia…; …this process is never employed effectively unless it is driven by high-quality leadership” (p26). At the same time, as he explained that change is an organization of systematic tasks in a sequence, Kotter (2002) also suggested that the initiative will likely only be as successful based on the level of leadership. This could be interpreted that process reengineering is leadership and this leadership is as effective as the abilities of the leader to interact with his/her followers to move from one point to another.

Some of the misperceptions of process reengineering are that change comes easy and that perhaps it may need to be just instructed to take place, and that being the end of the initiative. Kotter (2002) suggested quite to the contrary. He said that “…major change will not happen easily…” (p26). If change does not happen easily, and if successful change or reengineering requires leadership support of the initiative, then this might suggest that change is more difficult with less leadership support and minor change is also less difficult and requires less leadership support.

Kotter said that change can take from 3 to 10 years to sink in. The new processes are essentially new habits. It is easy for old habits to return. A celebration for success could be premature. This is important to recognize when considering that change is not a “reach goal…and done”-deal. It never stops. Change might possibly best be considered a lifestyle. Perhaps consultants should not tell companies what to expect in terms of money, cost, time, and success (p13).

It is often expected that at one point a change initiative will be complete, when then actually it is not. And if change is a continuous activity, then so will it require the continuous attitude support from all those that participate and are affected by it. If change is continuous, then it might be best to just face it: Change is the constant; it will always take place; we might as well get used to it. Perhaps with facing the reality that change always will take place as the sure thing, it might make new culture habits permanent.

 

1.2.Davenport’s view

Davenport (1993) introduced process innovation. “Process innovation combines a structure for doing work with an orientation to visible and dramatic results…The purpose of introducing something new into a process is to bring about major, radical change.” Dramatic results require apparently dramatic changes. In a sense, process innovation is like Kotter’s (2002) process re-engineering, making major changes to organizational processes.  

 

Davenport (1993) compared process innovation of radical results or measures with process improvement of minimal and incremental changes to processes (see below table 2). In a way, minimal or incremental changes are laid over existing processes by leaving current structures in tact. To the other hand, a radical change would require to eliminate existing structures, eradicate them completely, and start over from scratch with a clean slate.

 

Davenport (1993) table 1-3 Davenport Process Improvement versus Process Innovation (p11)

	Improvement	Innovation
Level of Change	Incremental	Radical
Starting Point	Existing process	Clean slate
Frequency of Change	One-time/continuous	One-time
Time Required	Short	Long
Participation	Bottom-up	Top-down
Typical Scope	Narrow, within functions	Broad, cross-functional
Risk	Moderate	High
Primary Enabler	Statistical control	Information technology
Type of Change	Cultural	Cultural/structural

Table 2, Comparison of Change Improvement with Incremental Change Outcomes

 

Davenport basically said that incremental change is not working as effectively to bringing about positive change outcomes. It is much better to implement high risk major radical change starting from a new and clean slate rather overlaying little by little and step by step existing processes. To dramatic changes, however, dramatic measures are required, which suggest that there will be dramatic consequences.

            These dramatic consequences in dramatic yet positive change could be for instance how effected human personnel will react for some loosing their jobs, others having to relearn new processes and skills, and yet working in tremendous stressful environments. In section 1 it was already discussed to some point that humans affected by change, the more radical it is, the more relationship and leadership building is required in order to motivate them to follow. If the ship is in trouble and the crew moral is down, the situation could become quickly hopeless for both, the crew and the ship. The topic leadership requirements and relationship building will be more discussed in section 4.

 

1.3.Hammer’s and Champy’s view

Hammer and Champy (2001) defined reengineering: “Reengineering is the same product produced with less labor in order to stay competitive” (p3). “Don’t fix the old unhealthy processes but reinvent processes.” When fixing a fragment or a section of a process (e.g. the payroll distribution of the accounting department), this is only band-aiding. This “clean slate” type reengineering is somewhat similar to Davenport’s (1993) process innovation methodology. Both require the elimination of existing processes, and start the process development from scratch. This suggests when finished cost of goods needs to decrease, a product manufacturing process needs to consist of less labor, but it also needs to either maintain the same quality at least, or be better than before. “Reengineering … means doing more with less” (Hammer and Champy, 2002, p51).

 

Hammer and Champy (2002) supported the “clean slate-radical redesign” of process measure with this statement:

“Reengineering, properly, is the fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of business processes to achieve dramatic improvements in critical, contemporary measures of performance, such as cost, quality, service, and speed. … and radical redesign means getting to the root of things: not making superficial changes…” (p36).

 

1.4.Kotter’s and Cohen’s view

 “The eight-stage process of creating major change” by Kotter and Cohen (2002), demonstrates a step-by-step, kind of like an incremental process improvement methodology, that shows strength in causal relationships from one step to the other. It is recommended to include this incremental, yet innovative process reengineering in the radical change methodologies as well in incremental change. This is because various situations may require the inclusion of both at the appropriate moment or situation. Regardless of a process change being major radical or mild and incremental, once the eight steps are examined, it will become clear that all change methodologies might require a causal incremental step-by-step organization, rather then being unplanned, or unorganized (Meredith and Mantel (2003).

 

Incremental Change Process Steps by Kotter and Cohen (2002) p21:	Expected potential results if followed could be but are not limited to:
1. Establishing a sense of urgency	Leads to participation and the motivation that what is just about to change is really important. Also increases emotional engagement (Goleman et al, 2002).
2. Creating the guiding coalition	The guiding coalition is the team that leads and participates in the change initiative(s). The better they collaborate, or work together, and the greater their support is in the change project, the more likely a positive change result can be expected.
3. Developing a vision and strategy	The change project, although it is a continuous ongoing project, needs to have a vision, a theme, something that touches the heart of the participants and gives them the motivating reason to continue and believe in the completion-importance. Both, vision and strategy are interconnected with # 1, the urgency understanding and the support team needs to believe in it.
4. Communicating the change vision	The clarity of the communication of the vision, of what the project steps at the point of each mile-stone accomplishment should look like, is the key to buy-in. The clarity is the quality of communication. With it, it enables the team to collaborate smoothly and follow exactly the blue-print and engineering instructions given. In other words, it will lead to participation.
5. Empowering broad-based action	Empowering those that bought-into the process change requirement, will support participation. In 4, the participants create the desire to participate, and with empowerment, they will be enabled to act.
6. Generating short-term wins	Short-term wins celebrated are the in # 4 envisioned mile-stone accomplishments. Because the process change is ongoing and usually takes 3 to 10 years each major project, short-term goals achieved and celebrated lead to job satisfaction among those that participated.
7. Consolidating gains and producing more change	The work is not over. This was just the first (or second) win in the process change round. After the celebration in # 6, the change managers enter the next round with high spirits. Kotter and Cohen (2002) focused on building on momentum in this action, based on what was accomplished before: Do it again.
8. Anchoring new approaches in the culture	“Tradition is a powerful force” (Kotter and Cohen, 2002, p161). Because change is continuous, the attitude learned in every step, when becoming a culture, rather than just thinking this is a one-time process change action (and then never again), adapting to this new change-attitude-culture (willingness) will help make change process steps come easier.

Table 3, Potential results of Incremental Change Processes

 

In summary of the eight-step change process, Meredith and Mantel (2003) suggested that project change managers (leaders according to Kotter, 1995) in place are recommended to lead the change ongoing. These leaders’ roles are recommended to analyze risks and opportunities that arise from the ongoing change actions, and to help the participants dealing with the causal consequences of for instance how they might want to participate, interact, and respond to change processes that affect their work, performance, effectiveness, their work process flow and process changes, and dealing with frustration.

In other words, somebody needs to oversee the process steps and assure that the people involved in the change remain positive, are rewarded, and are recognized. This somebody assures that the vision and the objective is followed. He/she also needs to evaluate any risks to the change project(s) or people that might sabotage the project. In doing this, the change project has a better chance in being positive and successful than without the change manager.

 

If these steps are not followed, what potential results can be expected? Kotter (1995) said: “…because he mostly skipped the earlier steps, he ran into a wall of resistance” (p22). Resistance to change or new comfort zones can arise from different situations. According to the author however, they come from skipping important steps in the process stages. For instance, why would a stakeholder buy-into the importance of a vision if he/she doesn’t believe a change is necessary? Establishing a sense of urgency is the most important step that will drive motivation or support for the change initiative. This is leadership.

 

Incremental Change Process Steps by Kotter and Cohen (2002) p21:	Expected potential results if not followed could be but are not limited too:
1. Establishing a sense of urgency	Those potentially affected will not think the change is really necessary
2. Creating the guiding coalition	Participants will not support the change project nor might they want to work with those also selected. Or if no team is selected at all, then nobody will be there to lead the change activities
3. Developing a vision and strategy	Unclear visions or strategy will lead to confusion and the people affected will argue over the purpose of change and the action requirements, which will lead to friction and possibly turn-over
4. Communicating the change vision	Unclear communication of a bad vision (or a clear and good vision) will likely result in misrepresentations. The end-result of the change project steps will be unclear and dissatisfying.
5. Empowering broad-based action	Assuming that some people are ready and willing to change and do whatever it takes to move forward, without the engine, the ignition key by itself will not get the car moving.
6. Generating short-term wins	Without short-term step or mile-stone celebrations, the team, whatever team there will be, will become frustrated, burned out, and will loose sight of the big vision. The people won’t be able to see an end of a project and could likely loose their energy to continue.
7. Consolidating gains and producing more change	Without celebration of what was just accomplished and without a new beginning of a next phase without another short-term win in sight, the team will not have a sight or a goal in sight and therefore wonder without objective. Their chance to get into the routine to change their processes from one step to the other is becoming very small
8. Anchoring new approaches in the culture	And because # 6, and # 7 did not take place, the chance for building a routine change culture habit is very small, or non-existent. And even if all previous steps were followed, if # 8, not anchoring the change process activities into the culture, it will cause the team to revert right back to their old habits, once the project is complete. This will make the change project unsuccessful. How many times was new software in an organization installed and taught, which nobody afterwards actually implemented or used?

Table 4, Potential results of Incremental Change Processes if not followed