Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd
Upload
2 views

Week 3 Seminar Transformational Change

Uploaded by

Nooria Yaqub
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
2 views

Week 3 Seminar Transformational Change

Uploaded by

Nooria Yaqub
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 28

TRANSFORMATIONAL

CHANGE

Dr Vivian Ikechukwu-Ifudu
House Cleaning
 Turn mobile phones
on silent.
 English should be
spoken in class.
 Start your
assignment on time.
 Ask questions if not
clear.
 Work as a Team
 Quietly leave to use
the bathroom
TRANSFORMATIONAL
CHANGE
LECTURE OBJECTIVES:
Understand the concept of organisational
change
Understand the concept of emergence: Why

& How
 Explore the essence of most common form:

What
 Recognise the Business Process

Reengineering and magnitude of challenge


posed to organisations and its people
 Appreciate its potential value & need for

effective engagement with & management


 What is Transformational
Change?
Transformational change

 means alterations in certain areas which


is caused due to an interaction with the
environmental factors and creates a need
for new behaviours or changes in the
behaviours of the organizational
employees.

 A transformation is referred to as
organizational reorientation (Jick and Peeper,
2003, p.218).
TRANSFORMATIONAL CHANGE
CYCLE
1980s: NEED FOR TRANSFORMATIONAL
CHANGE
Increased Discerning
Spreading
Competitio Customers
Globalisati
n
on
Deepeni Innovative
ng &
Recessio Ubiquitous
n Business Environment: IT Changed
Organizations RemainDramatically
Unchanged

Organizational
Stretched Limits of Survival Threatened
Existing Incrementalist
Paradigm Incremental Change:
Cannot Sustain
Survival
TRANSFORMATIONAL CHANGE: CONCEPT
EMERGENCE

 Hammer (1990): “Reengineering Work:


Don’t Automate, Obliterate”
Harvard Business
Review
“The New Industrial
Engineering: Information
 Davenport & Short
Technology And Business
(1990): Process Redesign”
Sloan Management
usiness
ReviewProcess Reengineering (BPR)

“the fundamental re-thinking and radical re-


design of business processes, to achieve
dramatic improvements in critical, contemporary
measures of performance, such as cost, quality,
BPR: DEFINITION

 Business Process Reengineering is the


act of recreating a core business
process with the goal of improving
product output, quality, or reducing
costs

 Typically, it involves the analysis of a


company’s workflows, finding
processes that are inefficient, and
figuring out ways to get rid of them or
Video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=Wi-BmxkA7YU
BPR: KEY FEATURES

 Fundamental & Transformational Change


 Strategic Change Endeavour
 Quantum Leap in Performance
 Process Focused Work Design:
Eliminate functional & hierarchical
interruptions & discontinuity by replacing
“artificial separations with natural
togetherness” (Grey & Mitev, 1995)
 Work Organised Around Autonomous Teams
 Innovative Exploitation of ICT
BPR EXPLAINED
 Fundamental Rethinking: re-engineering usually
refers to the changing of significant business processes
such as customer service, sales order processing or
manufacturing
Radical Design: re-engineering is not involved with

minor, incremental change or automation of existing


ways of working. It involves a complete rethinking
about the way business processes operate
Dramatic improvements: the aim of BPR is to

achieve improvements measured in tens or hundreds of


%. With automation of existing processes only single-
figure improvements may be possible.
Critical contemporary measures of performance:

this point refers to the importance of measuring how


well the processes operate in terms of the 4 important
measures of costs, quality, service and speed.
BPR: ATTENDANT RISK
Holds Takes organisation on
Great risky journey with an
Promise unpredictable destination
(Martinez,
Transformation
1995) Dimension: High risk approach to
(Martinsons, 1995)

change

 Tension between Political & Functional Risk

 Holistic Change:
Change Complexity Catastrophe
(Beinhocker, 2006)

 ICT Dimension: Increased risk of all-or-


nothing implementation
 Cultural Dimension: Demands difficult
fundamental cultural & mindset changes
Culture can either enable or constrain BPR (Sayer,
BPR
METHODOLOGY

BPR Methodology involves the


radical redesign of core business
processes to achieve dramatic
improvements in productivity,
cycle times and quality.
It aims for total reinvention, and
it does not believe in small
improvements.
BPR: IMPROVEMENT TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES

IMPROVEMENT To RE-ENGINEER
IDEAS BUSINESS PROCESSES:
can be generated
by:
BPR: THE PROCESS
 BPR involves analysis of a business from a process
rather than a functional perspective and a redesign of
these processes to optimize performance.
Staged approach to a BPR study:
study
 Identify Process for Innovation; process(es) critical
to the organisation; seeking potentially significant
increases in performance in return for reengineering
effort. Scope & scale of process redesign projects must
be compatible with the organisation’s ability and
experience to undertake them. Map The Process: to
establish facts rather than perceptions of how the
business currently operates.
 Identify Value-adding Activities; for which activities
would a customer be prepared to pay? Handoffs /
handovers increase opportunity for errors, increase
BPR: THE PROCESS
 Eliminate Waste; remove unnecessary procedures /
processes; save time by removing altogether if no value
added. Manufacturing; moving, storing and inspecting rarely
add value)
 Make value-adding steps flow; essential value-adding steps
should flow by reengineering interfaces between successive
steps, removing any delays between each step. Perform steps in
parallel where possible rather than in sequence.
 Involve key people early in Design and Prototype of New
Processes; requires a team with mixed skills to deliver
creative and innovative process solutions and ensure that
they can be implemented (often involves external consultants
& simulation modelling).
Concurrent rather than sequential engineering between design
and manufacturing engineers is key.
BPR: THE PROCESS
STEPS
BPR: FAME & FATALITY
 Management Buzz Word of the 1990s (Martinsons &
Revenaugh, 1997)
 Survey Results:
69% (497 North American Co) & 75% (124 European
Co) (CSC Index, 1994)
77% of Leading UK Co (Harvey, 1994)
Swift 40%
Riseofto
Top 300 Scottish Co (Sockalingam & Doswell, 1996)
Fame:
 Led to Misinterpretation & Abuse
 Only 25% (Cafasso, 1993) & 30% (Carr and Johansson,
1995) claiming to be re-engineering engaged in
‘authentic’ BPR
Attracted Reasonable Conclusion Drawn:
High
“... enormous popularity [of, and],
Failure
significant satisfaction with the
Rate: concept and significant
70% dissatisfaction with implementation
DISMISSED AS
and results...” Altinkemer et al (1998)
BPR: AN ANATOMY OF ITS
FAILURE

 Initial Absence Of Theory


 Bandwagon Effect
 Poor Conceptual Understanding:
Reengineering Status Quo
 Paradigm Shifts & Vision Creation:
Top managers’ inability to change behaviour,
display leadership & commitment & act as role
models
 Consultants
 Human Dimension
Lack of concern for people : Slash & Burn
BPR: CRITICISM
Focuses on work activities rather than people who

perform the tasks (similar to Scientific Management)


BPR often accompanied by staff reductions (as much

as 20%)
Puts short-term stakeholder interests before company

employees’ interests
Combination of radical redesign AND downsizing could

mean essential core experience is lost


Leaves organisations vulnerable to market turbulence

due to loss of knowledge and experience of how to


cope with unexpected changes – too tight a fit
between resources and market requirements
BPR:
CRITICISM
Radical reconfiguration may carry a higher risk but is

a legitimate alternative to incremental development.


New process technology, especially IT needs to be
fully incorporated into process redesign to ensure
flexible capabilities in meeting new and latent
customer requirements.
Beware of any approach that dismisses people
contributions in operations and processes. Often
regarded as ‘employment bloodshed’.
Those implementing BPR may become disenchanted
when perceived benefits are not realised due to over-
inflated estimates of savings that can be achieved.
BPR: CONCEPT VALIDITY
CONTRIBUTION:
 Provoked managers into “searching for radically different
ways of doing business and considering the
unthinkable” (Armistead & Rowlands, 1996)
 Revealed gross operating inefficiencies, redundancies &
work disconnections in so many organisations (Fahey, 1998)

Validity of BPR can hardly be


questioned (Fahey, 1998)

Vital & necessary tool for established


organisations to:
 Incorporate new modes of operation consistent with the
environment (Oliver, 1993)
 Address a crisis in business (Baskerville & Smithson, 1995)
 Navigate through unprecedented change (Mumford et al, 1996)

THE 21ST CENTURY

Unabated Ficklene
Accelerated
Technological Pace of ss of
Revolution Innovation
Market
Scientific
Knowledge
Place
Increased
Competition
Growth
(NanoTech)

Businesses are on the threshold of a

NEW AGE:
Drucker (2001), Hamel (2000) and Stewart (2002), Huber (2004)

“Sometime over the next decade, your company


will be challenged to change in a way for which
it has no precedent” (Hamel, 2007)
KEY CHALLENGE FOR CONTEMPORARY
TRANSFORMATIONAL
CHANGE: MANAGEMENT INNOVATION

 Few organisations have fundamentally


changed the way they manage; power still
resides in vertical units and hierarchy, and
turf wars remain (Hammer & Stanton, 1999)

“Current management practices


emphasize control, discipline and
efficiency above all else — and that's
a problem. To thrive in the 21st
century, organizations must be
adaptable, innovative, inspiring and
socially accountable. That will require
a genuine revolution in management
page 25
principles and practices.” (Management
CONTEMPORARY TRANSFORMATIONAL
CHANGE PRIORITIES

 Create organisations as nimble as change


 Mobilise & monetise the imagination of every employee,
every day
 Create organisations that are highly engaging places to work
in
(Hamel, 2007)
FOR:

“Frame-breaking change initiated by visionary


executives who lead the organisation to a
strategic rebirth” (Goes et al, 2000)
THROUGH:
 Values (Moral Renaissance)
 Innovation (Only Defence)
 Adaptability (Evolutionary Advantage)
 Passion (Mediocrity Fast Becoming Competitive Liability)
 New Ideology (Based on Freedom & Self-Determination)
ASSESSMENTS: CASE STUDY
BASED
 Teams: Self-Selection – 5/Team
Group  40% of Module Mark
Presentatio  Presentation (10-15 mins)
n on case  REPORT SUBMISSION - Thursday 7th November
study 2024, at 4pm. Week 7 is PRESENTATION WEEK
 Every student must present
change plan
Individual 
 3,000 Words
60% of Module Mark
Report -  Individual case study analysis
Case Study  Tuesday 7th of January 2025, by 4pm
Analysis  15 Credit load students
SUBMISSIO  1 Soft Copy, with: Turnitin Originality Report
Plagiarism Declaration Checklist
N:
 NO Hard Copy – Online submission
REFERENCES
 Drucker, P. F. (2002). Managing in the next society. New
York: Truman Talley Books.
 Davenport, Thomas H. and Short, James E. (1990). The
New Industrial Engineering: Information Technology and
Business Process Redesign. Sloan Management Review,
pp. 11-27.
 Hammer, Michael,(1990). Reengineering Work: Don’t
Automate, Obliterate. Harvard Business Review.
 https://www.heflo.com/blog/process-optimization/
business-process-reengineering-methodology
 Todd Jick and Mauri Peeper (2002). Managing Change:
Text and Cases (2002). McGraw-Hill Higher Education; 2
edition.

You might also like