1. Definitions:

1.1. Leadership methods are mixed situational methods of change processes:

The leadership aspect in Business Process Reengineering (BPR) or other change methodologies is the combining of various methods to address multiple characters and situations all in one, thus broadening and increasing the chance for success in BPR (Goleman et al 2003). Mixed situational methods of change processes in this paper are referred to as a leadership influence by using namely multiple resonant leadership methodologies that affect change in BPR, holistic Business Process Management (hBPM), Process Modeling (PM), and Workshop Applications (WA).

 

1.2. Radical change effect (which is also a short-term strategic leadership method)

A short-term view such as radical change is referred to in this paper as a dissonant change process method. A dissonant leadership method as introduced by Goleman et al, 2003, consists of methods requiring from its followers’ obedience without questioning. The lack of buy-in, according to Gappmaier (1997) is however the result of a dissonant method applied. But in situations of dangers and emergencies and crisis, leaders might not have the time to explain every aspect of the change methodology to its followers. Time is critical during a crisis. Therefore, a dissonant methodology is not necessarily a negative thing. But it is certainly one that should perhaps receive considerable relationship repair once the crisis is over.

 

1.3. Incremental change (also referred to as long-term change process strategy)

The long-term change process strategies such as determined in this paper as incremental change are those that are well thought out and carefully planned with the inclusion of multiple stakeholders and rather going slowly forward with the change process to assure it is well accepted and the subject community and applicators are well adapted to new methodologies before a new one is introduced.

 

1.4. Business Process Re-engineering (BPR) – Change Methodology Environment

 This environment promotes change in a rather organized manner with a team of change process experts that plan each major step of the reorganization of various processes. The level of radical versus incremental change in BPR implemented depends on the quantity of overlapping old and existing processes with new ones. And this result – level and stakeholder interaction corresponds directly to whether the project step or change project is a long-term or short-term one. The BPR methodology allows room to adapt to and between situational leadership style applications and the two radically opponents, radical change and incremental change. The BRP methodology is focused on hierarchal management from top management down to lower management direction-giving and not so much allowing for stakeholder participation. This method is rather for fast change implementations, rather on the radical side.

 

1.5. hBPM – or Holistic participatory-solution-focused methods

 The hBPM methodology is so to speak an enhanced version of BPR with the focus to create a change environment of collaboration, participation from all possible stakeholder aspects, solution focus, and incremental reflection on process-step mini-accomplishments for evaluation. hBPM is not necessarily intended to deal with change processes slowly, gradually, and incrementally by involving everyone, but rather focus on getting change accomplished positively with as least possible casualties and greatest possible efficiency. The nature of the change process is therefore going slow. In the process therefore it is less stressful and could be considered more a situational mixed to incremental change method.

 

1.6. Process modeling

 Process modeling has been applied primarily to prevent hasty and costly decisions that are only later found as having been the wrong decisions. As a standard, process modeling is applied mostly with the help of technology where the steps, the length of each process step, and the logic flow are identified and measured. Usually this environment does not involve stakeholders in the process step and data input phase. However, stakeholders are invited to view the calculated and measured output of the electronic process modeling. This method, in hBPM is however in the input phase collaboratively collected, acted out, and evaluated in a participatory environment (Gappmaier, 1997).

 

1.7. Workshop applications

 The workshop applications method creates an environment much similar to the hBPM. Participants are collaborating in a seminar-style meeting where all together work on the understanding of process change methodologies, actual processes, and what it entails to get through all the incremental or radical change tasks. In workshops, according to Greenly and Carnal (2001), the focus is on customer needs and is considering employee rewards, people development, and coaching. Workshop applications environments in change are considered therefore incremental rather than radical, but even more so, are consisting of mixed-situational applications.

 

1.8. Complexities of Change

 Change takes place even without change intended (Toffler, 1970). Probably, it is suggested, most organizations, perhaps even all, are at one time or another plain and simple straight forward responders or reactors to change. For instance, a responder is someone who is surprised with change and then plans for a response after evaluation of the situation. While a change creator is one that implements an action who has already a plan in mind of how to interact with possible responses. For those who play and understand the game of chess, it might be a third nature to think ahead of possible responses.

 

In the construction industry the change of weather from sunshine to snowfall over night can change early morning decisions for roofers if the snow falls in summer. An avalanche covering a village in snow and ice or an earthquake destroying the only road to a city may cause panic in social communities and in the industries of business. The more surprising an event is to the unprepared the harsher is the change experience. This may especially apply in situations that have not been thought possible. And one must admit that it could be overwhelming to having to think of all and any possible events that might be able to happen so one could then plan contingencies for everything.

 

And the complexity of change in planned process reengineering projects is increased by changes that have not been considered before and because of the changes of ongoing social and technological changes all over in the world (Kendra and Taplin, 2004; and Toffler, 1970).  According to Haudan (2002) and H. Skipton and Maynard (2003), technology innovations change more rapidly, even sometimes over night. And when that happens, it may do the argument justice that planning in contingencies for changes that may occur within a change project are challenging to manage (Meredith and Mantel, 2003). This may be found true especially in the construction industry on the applicator level because the industry maintains even a “Change Order Form”.  This then might be good cause for change-contingency planning, provided the possible change variables are foreseeable or predictable.