Re: BPRREENG-L digest 123

Renata Faverin (DanMorman@aol.com)
Sun, 17 Dec 1995 11:45:07 -0500


BPR means many things to many people, but it should be differentiated by
from other initiatives by its scope, and the expectations you set for the
outcome.

Productivity improvements like Organization and Methods studies usually
center around a single department or area instead of the entire natural
process. This predictively leads to suboptimization of the whole. One of
the reasons that very large gains are possible is that it is very unlikely
that anyone in the organization has ever pieced together how the entire
process works. People know their own piece of the whole but now how their
work impacts people up and down stream in the process.

To cross territorial lines and study the complete process takes tremendous
political clout from the very top, (which is the reason these kinds of things
have not just happened in the past). It requires a relatively small group of
empowered people to get beyond the inevitable middle managment posturing to
reveal the core issues.

Another reason you can get big gains is by setting your expectations high.
Anyone can clean up their house and get 15% - 20% improvements. However, if
you want to cut somthing in half or more, you have to put aside what you
presently do, and figure out the best way from scratch. (it's impossible to
simply speed up what you are doing now to save 50%. You have to eliminate
steps; that is make steps unnecessary.)

Most pure organization studies are philosophicaly dangerous because they
start backwards. Businesses and Institutions deliver goods and services
through their processes, not through organizational alignment. It is vital
to build strong processes and then find the right organizational structure to
support the process. Reorganizing is often like rearranging the deck chairs
on the Titanic. The faces may change but the outcomes and core problems
remain.

We have led three BPR projects in the last three years. Let me know if we can
answer any questions.