What to Read Next
Already a member?Sign in
Major business reengineering efforts represent an organization’s commitment of millions of dollars for redesigning internal organizational processes, changing fundamental product delivery and customer service procedures, and often reexamining and repositioning corporate strategy. These efforts are inevitably accompanied by millions of dollars for replacing the information infrastructure and developing new application code to support the new processes, procedures, and strategies.
Just as inevitably, after completing a reengineering project, the organization lacks both resources and will to undertake a second reengineering effort to resolve the first project’s major deficiencies; thus reengineering generally constitutes a lasting legacy, and whatever is decided about the organization’s future design and built into the information systems will constrain the corporation for years.
Reengineering projects are inherently risky and uncertain. While the individual risk components associated with the projects are the same as those of any other large systems undertaking, the specific risk profile of reengineering projects is fundamentally different. In particular, the risks either of building the wrong systems or of terminating prematurely and thus completing no systems are both greater.
Successful business reengineering must begin by examining an organization’s future and its operating environment; based on this, reengineering must determine which of the organization’s fundamental assumptions about the future to reexamine and which strengths based on these assumptions must change. Techniques like scenario planning can greatly reduce risk and help executives properly focus their reengineering efforts.
Business Reengineering Defined
While almost everyone is convinced that reengineering is critical, not everyone knows what it is. Part of the confusion stems from the use of “business reengineering” to describe three different concepts. As commonly used, reengineering can refer to any of three degrees of fundamental business change:
- Reengineering can mean business process redesign, or BPR, the least radical degree of change. It entails redesigning processes to make them more efficient or improve service quality. However, BPR does not require a fundamental change in the purpose of the process, or in the larger processes in which it is embedded.
For example, when Rosenbluth Travel, a small Philadelphia firm, sought to eliminate even the possibility of certain classes of travel agent error, it developed a scripting language, PRECISION, to support reservation agents.
Read the Full ArticleAlready a subscriber? Sign in
1. Michael Hammer and James Champy, Reengineering the Corporation (New York: HarperCollins, 1993).
2. C. Argyris, Overcoming Organizational Defenses (Needham, Massachusetts: Allyn & Bacon, 1990).
3. Currently, New York and Tokyo, the two largest stock exchanges, have foreign volume that is a single-digit share of domestic volume, while in London, foreign volume actually exceeds domestic volume.
4. P.J.H. Schoemaker, “Scenario Planning: A Tool for Strategic Thinking,” Sloan Management Review, Winter 1995, pp. 25–40.
5. J. Russo and P.J.H. Schoemaker, Decision Traps (New York: Doubleday, 1989); and Schoemaker (1995).
6. J. Keegan, The Second World War (New York: Penguin Books, 1989).
7. M. Tushman and P. Anderson, “Technological Discontinuities and Organizational Environments,” Administrative Science Quarterly 31 (1986): 439–465; and
M. Tushman and E. Romanelli, “Organizational Evolution: A Metamorphosis Model of Convergence and Reorientation,” in L.L. Cummings and B.M. Staw, eds., Research in Organizational Behavior 7 (1985): 171–222.
8. Tushman and Anderson (1986); and
Tushman and Romanelli (1985).
9. P. Schwartz, The Art of the Long View (New York: Doubleday, 1991).
Schwartz provides an excellent, easy-to-read introduction to scenario analysis. My description of scenario creation and use is based on exercises conducted with Global Business Network and is described in more detail by Schwartz. A different methodology, leading to equivalent results, is described in Schoemaker (1995).
10. This is surprisingly difficult. U.S. business culture places considerable value on executives who are decisive and in charge. Executives competing to see who can be least certain about future trends and events that most influence the company, strategy, and performance can easily be seen as competing to demonstrate who is least qualified for his or her current position. An outside facilitator is important.
11. Schoemaker (1995).
12. Schwartz (1991); and
13. Schoemaker (1995).