Business Process Redesign: Tactics for Managing Radical Change

Photo by Ross Findon on Unsplash

Business Process Redesign (BPR) represents radical change within organizations, necessitating varied tactics based on the scope and depth of planned changes. This paper compares and contrasts BPR initiatives in three organizations, analyzes the suitability of various approaches, and discusses a real-world application of BPR in a SaaS Japanese startup, focusing on project management tools integration.

Radical organizational changes necessitate revolutionary tactics. BPR is an accelerated method for reengineering business processes, structures, and IT within organizations. This paper explores BPR in FinanceCo, DefenseCo, and FoodCo as discussed in Stoddard and Jarvenpaa’s (1995) article, “Business Process Redesign: Tactics for Managing Radical Change.” The analysis will highlight key differences in approaches, outcomes, and the relevance of each case to real-world business challenges.

Comparing BPR Initiatives

FinanceCo, DefenseCo, and FoodCo each undertook BPR with distinct approaches and scopes:

• FinanceCo: Aimed at transforming from a mass marketer to a personalized service provider. The initiative spanned the entire organization, involving over 2,000 employees. It sought deep structural and cultural changes supported by IT innovations, moving towards a client-server environment (Stoddard & Jarvenpaa, 1995). The primary goal was to improve profitability and customer retention by leveraging personalized service delivery. This comprehensive approach required extensive changes across multiple departments, impacting organizational culture, employee roles, and IT infrastructure.
• DefenseCo: Focused on the purchasing department within a division primarily serving the U.S. military. The initiative aimed to cope with reduced demand due to industry downsizing. It involved redefining roles, adopting new IT systems, and implementing significant organizational changes in a short time frame (Stoddard & Jarvenpaa, 1995). DefenseCo’s approach was more contained, focusing on improving efficiency and reducing cycle times within a specific functional area. The urgency of adapting to a shrinking market and the necessity to maintain profitability underpinned the need for rapid and substantial changes.
• FoodCo: Implemented a standardized MRPII system across 40 manufacturing plants. This effort sought to streamline processes and improve control. It involved a mix of revolutionary tactics in design and evolutionary tactics in implementation, reflecting the varied requirements across different plants (Stoddard & Jarvenpaa, 1995). The initiative aimed at achieving cost savings through standardization and improved coordination across the company’s extensive manufacturing network. The approach had to balance the need for rapid transformation with the practicalities of implementing changes across diverse operational contexts.

Suitability of BPR Approaches

Scope and Depth of Change

• FinanceCo: Organization-wide with significant IT integration, suitable for comprehensive transformation. The extensive scope allowed for a holistic approach, ensuring that changes in one area supported and complemented changes in others. However, this also meant that the initiative required significant time and resources to implement effectively.
• DefenseCo: Department-specific, focusing on efficiency and quick adaptation to a declining market, suitable for targeted radical change. The limited scope facilitated a more focused and rapid implementation, which was critical given the competitive pressures faced by the company. The depth of change was substantial within the targeted area, involving complete redefinition of roles and processes.
• FoodCo: Cross-functional with a focus on standardization and cost reduction, suitable for process efficiency improvements. The broad scope across multiple plants necessitated a flexible approach, allowing for customization to local contexts while maintaining overall coherence. The depth of change varied, with some plants requiring more significant adjustments than others.

Revolutionary vs. Evolutionary Tactics:

• FinanceCo and FoodCo: Adopted revolutionary tactics in design but shifted to evolutionary tactics in implementation, facilitating gradual adoption (Stoddard & Jarvenpaa, 1995). This approach helped manage the risks associated with large-scale changes, ensuring that employees could adapt to new processes incrementally. It also allowed for continuous feedback and adjustments, improving the chances of long-term success.
• DefenseCo: Maintained revolutionary tactics throughout, reflecting the urgency and depth of required changes (Stoddard & Jarvenpaa, 1995). The consistent use of revolutionary tactics ensured rapid implementation and clear, decisive shifts in practices and culture. This was essential to meet the immediate challenges posed by the external environment.

Real-World Application: Implementing BPR in a SaaS Japanese Startup

Situation and Need for Change

In my workplace, a SaaS Japanese startup, our project management tools are not aligned and integrated, causing delays and inefficiencies. Different teams use various tools that do not communicate well with each other, leading to miscommunication, duplicated efforts, and reduced productivity. This misalignment has created significant challenges in project execution, tracking progress, and ensuring consistent communication across teams. The fragmented nature of our current systems has also made it difficult to maintain a clear overview of project statuses, leading to bottlenecks and missed deadlines.

Scope and Depth of Change

The scope includes all departments using project management tools, with potential cross-functional impacts on sales, development, and customer support. The depth involves redefining workflows, processes, and adopting a unified project management system, aiming for a transformative change in project execution and collaboration. The goal is to create a cohesive and integrated project management environment that supports seamless communication and efficient project tracking. This will involve not only the technical integration of tools but also significant changes to how teams collaborate and share information.

Tactics and BPR Initiative

1. Leadership and Vision: Appoint a dedicated BPR leader with experience in project management and IT integration. Engage top management to endorse and communicate the vision of a unified project management system (Reardon et al., 1998). Leadership involvement is crucial to provide clear direction, allocate necessary resources, and ensure that the initiative aligns with the company’s strategic goals. The leader should have a strong background in managing complex projects and a clear understanding of the technological landscape.
2. Employee Involvement: Form cross-functional teams including high-performing employees from all departments. Provide full-time dedication during the design phase and part-time involvement during implementation (Reardon et al., 1998). Engaging employees from different functions ensures that the new system meets diverse needs and encourages buy-in from all stakeholders. It also leverages the collective expertise and insights of the workforce. Regular workshops and brainstorming sessions should be conducted to gather input and foster a sense of ownership among employees.
3. Communication: Ensure transparent communication through regular updates, town hall meetings, and an internal newsletter. Use feedback loops to address concerns and keep employees informed about progress and changes (Hogue, 2015). Effective communication helps manage expectations, reduces resistance, and fosters a culture of collaboration and openness. Additionally, setting up a dedicated communication channel, such as a project portal, can help streamline information dissemination and ensure that all team members are on the same page.
4. Motivation: Frame the BPR initiative as a response to increasing project demands and competitive pressures. Highlight the benefits of improved collaboration, reduced workload through automation, and enhanced project visibility (Zhu, 2017). Emphasizing the positive outcomes of the initiative can motivate employees to embrace the changes and actively participate in the transformation process. Incentives such as recognition programs and performance-based rewards can also be introduced to encourage participation and commitment.
5. Milestones: Set flexible milestones for design and initial implementation phases. Rigid milestones can be established as the project progresses and gains stability (Reardon et al., 1998). Flexibility in the early stages allows for adjustments based on feedback and unforeseen challenges, while rigid milestones later ensure timely completion and accountability. It is important to celebrate small wins along the way to maintain momentum and demonstrate progress to the entire organization.
6. IT Integration: Implement a unified project management system (e.g., Jira, Asana) that integrates with existing CRM and development tools. Ensure iterative development and testing to align with organizational capabilities and employee readiness (Stoddard & Jarvenpaa, 1995). A phased approach to IT integration helps manage the transition smoothly, providing opportunities to address issues and optimize the system before full-scale deployment. Training programs and support resources should be provided to help employees adapt to the new tools and processes.

Conclusion

BPR requires tailored approaches depending on the scope and depth of changes. Comparing FinanceCo, DefenseCo, and FoodCo illustrates varying tactics suited to different organizational contexts. Applying these insights to a real-world scenario demonstrates the practical application of BPR, emphasizing leadership, employee involvement, communication, motivation, and IT integration for successful transformation. The success of BPR initiatives hinges on aligning strategic objectives with practical implementation tactics, ensuring that changes are sustainable and deliver long-term benefits. As organizations navigate the complexities of BPR, it is essential to remain adaptable, responsive to feedback, and committed to continuous improvement.

References

Reardon, K. K., Reardon K. J., & Rowe, A. J. (1998). Leadership styles for the five stages of radical change. Acquisition Review Quarterly, 129–146.

Stoddard, D. B., & Jarvenpaa, S. L. (1995). Business process redesign: Tactics for managing radical change. Journal of Management Information Systems, 12(1), 81–107.

Hogue, F. (2015, November 9). 5 habits of truly disruptive leaders. Fast Company. https://www.fastcompany.com/3052725/5-habits-of-truly-disruptive-leaders

Zhu, D. (2017, December 6). Dominic Barton on disruption and leadership. Huffpost. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/st-gallen-symposium/dominic-barton-on-disrupt_b_13223402.html

Note:
This article is written based on University of The People Leading in Today’s Dynamic Context (BUS 5411) written assignment by Fristy Tania Sato in May 2024