Administrative analysis for reengineering and organizational change

Many have been the interpretations that the writers have made about what Administrative Analysis means; some of them define it as the study of problems that occur in an Organization or Company, both at the micro-analytical and macroanalytical levels. There is really no good or bad definition of what Administrative Analysis can mean. In this small contribution, we intend to clarify to the reader what it is, from a new perspective: Administrative Analysis.

We can define the Administrative Analysis as the exhaustive examination of the organizational, dynamic, functional, structural and behavioral planes in a company or organization, to detect anomalous situations and propose the necessary solutions.

The Dynamic Organizational Plane

This plan comes from the postulates that the tradista Luther Gullick, one of the pioneers of the Classical School of Administration, made correctly. Gullick maintains that in an organization there must be certain administrative principles, namely: Planning, Organization, Staff or Staffing and Consulting, Management, Control, Report, and Budget. At the time we carry out a specific investigation of what corresponds to the Dynamic Organizational Plan, we focus on the efficient and effective fulfillment of each of these postulates.

The Functional Plane

In this plane, it is investigated how and in what way the organization carries out its productive activities, for which the Analyst can use tools such as organization charts, sociograms, work distribution tables, flow charts, statistical tables, among others. One of the most important purposes of research in this field is to determine how to improve and make more effective the organization's production processes.

The Structural Plane

From the earliest times, the Administration has nurtured its theory of some organizations such as the Catholic Church, the Egyptians, the Army, among others, which at the time developed structures that functioned in their time and space; but that, nevertheless, brought to our days seem not to adapt to our time and space. We could say, without fear of being mistaken, that many of the current Firms or Companies still suffer influences from such ancestral organizations. One of the characteristics of the current Administration is constant change; which is applied to this structural plane, while the organizational structures must be investigated in order to improve them each time, and thus provide the customer with a service that meets their expectations.

The behavioral plane

Organizations have already accepted that their most valuable and precious resource is Human. Current researchers pay special attention to this factor as one of the most critical in the management of a company. Interpersonal relationships, both formal and informal, are those investigated on this plane; no longer observing the human being as a simple productive machine, but as one of the most important parts of the company that must be maintained, developed and enhanced. Today's companies, aware of the importance of human resources, have implemented Organizational Development programs in order to prepare their valued collaborators for change, concomitantly with effective technical training.

The Four Planes Investigated By Administrative Analysis In An Organization

DYNAMIC ORGANIZATIONAL PLAN

FUNCTIONAL PLAN

STRUCTURAL PLAN

BEHAVIORAL PLAN

(P) lanear

(O) rganizar

(S) taff

(D) irection

(R) eporte (P) budget

How things are done.

How the

organization structure is designed.

Formal relationships versus

informal relationships.

Administrative Analysis, in turn, can be practiced at two levels depending on its depth: Microanalysis and Macroanalysis; In addition, it can be practiced at three levels according to its scope, namely: Acronic, Synchronous and Diachronic.

In the Administrative Microanalysis, a part of a superior organ is studied in detail, from its most general to the most specific aspects. The Administrative Macroanalysis performs the examination in a more global way, that is, the set of organs that are part of a superior system.

If we talk about the Acronic level, we will only observe the endostructure or internal structure in general, that is, factors such as processes, structures, evaluations, among others. At the Synchronous level, endogenous factors are analyzed, but in a more specific way, that is, it breaks down each of the subsystems and interrelates them with the other lesser subsystems.

At the Diachronic level, it may be the most difficult task, since here the transactions between the Environment or Environment and the Organization are analyzed, which will result in the strategic needs that the organization must regulate in order to survive in a world. dynamic and competitive like the current one.

In fact, we could say that the raison d'être of Administrative Analysis is, without a doubt, change. Given this phenomenon, the Administrative Analyst must act with two main objectives:

Be clear about the laws of change.

Adjust the Organization to those changes that the Environment or Environment demands in a systematic way.

The Administrative Analysis is also nourished by a series of Administrative Diagnosis Models to be able to implement any change in the organization, since they cannot simply obey a "Management Fashion", but rather a diagnosed situation; that is, to a systematic identification of the internal and external factors that determine an anomalous situation that it is imperative to correct.

Some of these Models are: Model of Walter Vásquez "Comparison by Functions", Model of Milton Esman and Hans Blaise "Institutionalization", Model of Larry Greiner "Evolution and Revolution as Organizations Grow", Model of Ernest Dale, Model of Richard Hall from his work "Organizations, Structure and Process", "SWOT" (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities & Threats) also known as "SWOT" (Strengths, Opportunities, Weaknesses and Threats), "General Systems Theory", "Organization and Methods ", among others.

The main tools of the Administrative Analyst are the Organizational Diagnostic Models (MDO), which serve to carry out an effective diagnosis that will serve in turn to continue the Prognosis.

We understand as Prognosis the assessment made by the Analyst of the information that stands out from the Organizational Diagnosis and that must be confronted with some Conceptual Theoretical Model of the General Theory of Administration, with the sole purpose of delimiting what may be the best way to operationalize the change or resolve the existing anomalous situation.

Within the Conceptual Theoretical Models of the General Theory of Administration, we find all the Classical Theory of Administration: some specialized Authors, in addition to other currents such as Total Quality, Reengineering, Administration by Values, Empowerment, Kaizen, among others.

When carrying out an Administrative Analysis through an effective Organizational Diagnosis, anomalous situations are determined that are confronted with the Theoretical Conceptual Models, to specify what should be corrected and how; from there you can conclude and recommend solutions for the problems of a given organization.

From the decision to change, a change strategy must be adopted that must be systematic without a doubt. That is, without haste but without pause, especially with the human resources of the organization, because a technological, structural or functional change is very easy, but transforming people's minds is a process that requires time and patience.

Climate Organizational culture and human resources the most important thing in reengineering

Many of the business leaders when they hear the word Reengineering tremble with fear. Others feel as if it were the best of the "cookbook" that Modern Administrative Theory offers. But in reality it is a philosophy that when used well can provide magnificent results; but that mismanaged in the minds of people can cause organizational entropy.

Recently in Japan, Mesaoki Imai analyzed Reengineering postulates according to Michael Hammer and James Champy, to determine that "Impact Reengineering" really lacked a very important part: the human one.

In many countries, including ours, they introduced this philosophy in both public and private companies, ignoring that a Reengineering program without continuous improvement of each and every one of its participants, the only thing that generates is uncertainty and, at a certain point, destruction of the resource. human.

Reengineering is a word that is pronounced with fear, since it means for the eventual participants: fear, uncertainty, loss and discomfort, all of them synonyms of demotivation and unproductiveness. Although it is true that organizations must adapt to the new and competitive airs that prevail under pain of disappearing, they can do so through a novel program such as Reengineering, but taking into account the most important thing of an organization: its resource human.

Mesaoki Imai develops the Kaizen Theory as the human part of Reengineering, which aims for a continuous "improvement" in the organization's personnel from Line Management to Operational Levels, but with a strong emphasis on the life of the collaborator, whether in your workplace or in your social and family life. Imai maintains that there is not a moment in life that cannot be learned and improved.

In the first instance, this human part is developed, because according to Hammer, the philosophy of Reengineering was mainly implemented in three areas:

Structure.

Processes.

Technological platform.

Mainly the Organizational Structure focused on transforming those vertical or pyramidal structures, protective of fiefs, away from the client, slow, inflexible and distorting communication, by more horizontal and flexible structures, where the organization was structured by reason of the client, that is to say from outside to inside and not vice versa.

The transformation of the Processes focused on ending the task concept and those collaborators who only did "what was their turn" and nothing else. Discarding the concept of task, the term process was implemented; that is, the organization produces by processes and sub-processes, where the work groups are responsible for the service offered to the client and all the collaborators know how to do everything. When the work is carried out by processes, four basic ones are distinguished: technical, tactical, strategic and administrative; from there, the existing threads were delimited.

Why is there talk of reengineering?

It is no longer an unknown topic, it has received many names but the goal is the same to increase the capacity to compete. The most common and basic characteristic of the redesigned processes is that serial work disappears. In other words, many steps or tasks that were previously different are integrated and compressed into one.

The real reengineering job, the heavy load, is the work of the team members. These are the ones who have to produce the ideas and plans and turn them into reality. No team can redesign more than one process at a time, which means that no company or institution can redesign more than one process at a time, which means that a company that is going to redesign several processes must have more than one team working.

To achieve the strategies that will be put into action, it is suggested to adopt a total quality program. This concept involves an integral system of the director that begins with the definition of the entity's vision, its mission and its values.

The active participation of the leader in this process should be rewarded for the achievement of more agile, sensitive and competitive organizations that achieve their goals in the medium and long term thanks to the full satisfaction of the users, in this case teachers and students, to the development of its employees and to the adequate satisfaction of all involved.

Changing

A redesigned process does not require the worker to follow rules but to execute his own judgment in order to do what he must do; employees need enough education to discern what to do. Traditional companies emphasize confronting employees.

The focus on performance and compensation measures shifts from activity to result. The remuneration of workers in traditional companies is relatively simple. Where contribution and performance have been redesigned are the main bases of remuneration.

In a redesigned organization, company, firm, or institution, employees must have beliefs like the following:

- Clients pay our wages: I must do whatever it takes to please them.

- Every job in this company is essential: mine is very important.

- The responsibility is mine: I must accept the ownership of the problems and solve them.

- I belong to a team or we fail or save together.

Understand business behavior

One of the key words in reengineering is replacement, but before analyzing where and how to use it, it is necessary to know how businesses evolve and have done it slowly, the history of business evolution, this began many years ago in cities more old, as a company evolves, however slow its development always has some change.

Almost every time a business starts, employees know each other, and the policies and methods are informal, indicating that the respective processes are particularly simple, direct and known to all.

The evolution of hierarchical structures are directly related to organization charts, because only through them is there a possible orientation, which is limiting in an increasing number of cases.

The most obvious feature of hierarchical evolution is the creation of additional levels of management to accommodate organizational growth.

Global competition

The global competition process constitutes an excellent strategy to achieve a long-term competitive position, since it provides specific instruments and techniques to achieve it.

This process builds skills and knowledge, engages senior management, focuses on consistently achieving improvement, and builds a corporate culture that values customer satisfaction more than anything else.

The importance of full competition lies in three reasons, which are described below:

- Today's business environment is extremely competitive, not only at a purely national level, but also internationally.

- Today's consumer demands quality like never before. Recent consumer research shows this.

- Research also shows that consumers are more willing to move from one company to another, not only for the purpose of obtaining a better price. They will change in search of a better service: reliability, accessibility, courtesy and others.

Likewise, it is important for organizations to reengineer:

- To survive

- To beat the competition

- Increase their competitive advantages

- Retain customers

- Increase profits

- Satisfy their employees

Summarizing we have that these two processes, both global competition and reengineering are important since the so-called globalization of the world economy has removed the traditional barriers between countries to favor trade and investment, generating new and spectacular opportunities.

Access to markets and business opportunities will depend, among other things, on knowledge, information, technology and joint work schemes to face the challenge of competitiveness.

Technology change and Reengineering

An organization that cannot change its way of thinking about technology cannot be redesigned. Technology plays a crucial role in business reengineering, but it's also very easy to misuse.

Technology, to the highest degree of modern technology, is part of any reengineering effort, an essential enabler, because it enables companies to redesign their processes. But just as a government's problems cannot be solved by simply spending more and more money, neither does simply allocating more computers to an existing problem mean that it has been redesigned. In reality, the misuse of technology can block reengineering because it reinforces old ways of thinking and old behavior patterns.

The Paradigmatic Change

In recent times, some modern procedures for guiding business have been gaining strength and implicitly carry the idea of change, above all trying to focus activities on redesigns and new structures to get the most out of the various situations that arise in the companies.

Among these movements aimed at improving commercial techniques, the so-called paradigm stands out, which in other words means «model», one of whose main promoters is Joel Barker (1990), who defines it as «a set of rules aimed at establishing limits and describing how to solve problems within those limits ».

From this definition it follows that a paradigm or model is nothing more than any technique or procedure that enables the proposed objectives to be achieved in a practical, quick and convenient manner.

Paradigm Resistance to change

Despite everything that can be done to create a climate that is conducive to change, some degree of resistance can be anticipated. This may be based on economic fear, fear of experiencing a reduction in pay or temporary or even permanent unemployment.

Employees may also fear that the change may harm their status or reduce the recognition or satisfaction they have been obtaining for their work. They may also perceive the suggested change as an expression of criticism of their performance or actions.

Paradigms are often the cause of these unconscious resistance. If a proposed change collides with a paradigm, the result will be a feeling of threat, a natural defense mechanism that works at the subconscious level.

The filter paradigm is also the underlying cause of many communication problems. Each individual has a different set of paradigm so that it is acceptable, even obvious, for one person to misunderstand or reject another. For years the magnitude of this problem has been openly recognized, but there has been no success in correcting it.

Reengineering the movement towards a new paradigm

Reengineering is not itself a paradigm, although many believe it, but it requires a new one to be effective. However, it is true that applying reengineering without challenging our basic assumptions about business will not give the expected results, a failure that many initial attempts have shown.

Reengineering: Features that Support Success

At first it works to reinvent the company. Get people to accept the idea of a radical change in their work life.

Companies have developed clear messages about the need to redesign in two keys:

The first of these messages has to be a compelling case for change. You have to carry the idea that redesign is essential for the survival of the company.

The second message, what the company has to become, gives employees a specific goal to work for by exposing it, management is forced to think clearly about the purpose of its change program and the degree of change. that needs to be done through reengineering.

The names for the documents companies use to pose and communicate these two messages are called “pro-action arguments and the second vision statement. The pro action argument must be concise, comprehensive, persuasive, brief and direct. It contains five main elements:

- Business context: summarizes and describes what is happening and changing in the company.

- The commercial problem: it is the source of the company's concerns.

- Market demand: how the conditions of said market have led to new performance requirements that the company cannot meet.

- Diagnostic section: clarifies why the company is not able to meet the new performance requirements and why the usual techniques of increased improvements will not do any good.

- Cost of Inaction: is the argument that ends with a section that warns about the consequences of not redesigning.

The second paradigm shift

The first paradigm shift was based on the recognition of quality and operational efficiency, but it did not result from the use of old commercial schemes.

The second is based on the application of reengineering in business, counting for it in the concept of continuous and directed change.

The changing paradigm

It is the part that understands the tremendous problem of persuading people within the organization to embrace, or at least not hinder, the prospect of great change.

Getting people to accept the idea of a radical change in their working lives, their jobs, is not a war that is won in a single battle. It is an educational and communications campaign that accompanies reengineering from start to finish. It is a work of persuasion that begins with the conviction that it is necessary to redesign, and does not end until the redesigned processes are already working.

From experience, the companies that have been most successful in persuading their employees are the ones that have developed the clearest messages about the need to redesign. The senior managers of these companies have done the best job of formulating and presenting two key messages that you have to communicate to the staff who work in their organizations.

The pro-action argument says why the company needs to be redesigned. It must be concise, comprehensive and persuasive. It is not simply that the company shouts: "The wolf is coming!" It has to be a real argument for action: dramatically compelling, supported by concrete facts, that raises the cost of doing anything other than reengineering. If the company is in danger of losing its competitive advantage in any branch of business, the pro action argument must say so. If you see your profit margins continually erode, your pro action argument should show it. If it is doomed to total failure, the pro-action argument must also state it clearly, but only if it is true. The document must be convincing without exaggeration,It must be so persuasive that no one in the organization is left with the idea that there is any alternative other than reengineering.

In the technological platform, it was argued that in order to provide an adequate service, the organization should have state-of-the-art technology; since information is the blood that makes an organization's processes work and, therefore, more information must be handled, but fewer roles. But the technology platform not only sought to improve customer service, but also structure it around it.

When the leaders of the companies heard this "recipe", the vast majority forgot that it is humans who make organizations work, but they still implemented reengineering, causing failure in most cases.

What refers to Structure, Processes and Technological Platform is called by Imai, the «R» factors and mentions Human Resources and Climate and Organizational Culture as the «P» factors, which are the most important. When we refer to Human Resources we talk that productivity must be a cooperative management in the sense that people must work as a team and not individually, that is, with a strong sense of synergy: unity is strength and in this case the quality.

In the case of the human resources part of Reengineering, we can say that we must know how to intelligently manage human resources, but rather than manage them, lead them; Only a leader can face a Reengineering program, because humans do not like to obey, but rather cooperate.

In Climate and Organizational Culture, a better adaptability of human resources to the new and demanding philosophy is sought, through a strong management of values such as identification, belonging, union, security, among others.

All the above behaviors, desirable in an employee participating in a Reengineering program, was what aroused the interest of the Japanese Imai, concluding that they could only be achieved through a change in individual and group behavior.

The Kaizen of Reengineering deals with the subject of Human Resources and Climate and Organizational Culture in a special way. He maintains that one of the tools to support the collaborator in his attitudinal change is Transactional Analysis (TA); and curiously the behaviors that the change manager looks for in his collaborator, have a great affinity with the state of the Adult Self in the OT.

In Transactional Analysis we have three states of the Ego, namely:

The child Ego: in this position the employee has reactions such as the need for protection and fear for situations that are unknown and that come from the outside world.

The Ego Father: here the ego position of the collaborator is manifested through an imposition and marked punishment, which is noted in the treatment towards his companions and even towards the client.

The Adult Ego: it is the most mature and logical reasoning behavior. The collaborator here has a marked control and independence over the situations that surround him and above all an emotional intelligence that highlights him.

In addition to noting that all the behavioral characteristics of the "ideal" collaborator are held by the adult Ego, we must also emphasize that it possesses another characteristic of no less importance: its existential position.

The existential position is important for the collaborator in that it provides him with a negative or positive vision of the world in which he lives and develops, which in turn will influence his interpersonal relationships with his colleagues and clients.

The TA technique provides a set of psychological norms to improve interpersonal relationships between collaborators and thus sensitize them to the implementation of a philosophy as impactful as Reengineering. The Kaizen philosophy of Imai is a more pragmatic than theoretical matter and what it intends is to channel interpersonal relationships in a more positive and constructive way.

There is no doubt that with the implementation of aspects such as Climate, Organizational Culture and Human Resources in Reengineering through Kaizen, it generates a stability of the organizational system, providing norms that clarify the behavior of individuals and groups, which in turn instead results in better Reengineering stability for an Organization.

The essence of the change decision

Organizations try to survive the demanding and competitive environment that surrounds them day by day, but their leaders do not always take into account that they must learn to appreciate the change and take advantage of it with great determination.

There have been many theories of improvement that have emerged in order to operationalize change; however, organizations have taken these theories and implemented them without preparing their people to be part of the change, which has caused great resistance generated by economic factors, discomfort, uncertainty, symbols, interpersonal relationships, resentment, attitude of groups, among others.

This contribution is not intended to offer "a formula for managing change"; but it does provide a series of variables that are of utmost importance when considering obtaining an effective result in a process of change.

Change is a transformation in the economic, technological, social, political, scientific, administrative fields and above all in the expectations of man. The importance of implementing change in organizations is that they must be in accordance with the requirements of the environment, under pain of becoming obsolete and entering into entropy processes.

To identify a better method of knowing the change and plan it, we will cite the three types or strategies of change that exist:

Evolutionary change: this is when the status quo varies in a minimal way, it is slow and moderate, it is not in accordance with the requirements of the environment.

Revolutionary change: This is when the status quo varies rapidly, intensely, and abruptly. This type of strategy transforms the expectations of its stakeholders, generating a large volume of resistance.

Systematic change: it is when the status quo is transformed without haste but without pause, here are mechanisms that prepare people to receive change as an ally and not as a threatening agent. This type of strategy is the most appropriate to implement a change in the organization.

Although it is easy to determine what is the strategy that should be used to avoid injuring our organization and its human resources, change is always intended to be implemented right away, causing people to generate resistance to change: a great wall of behaviors aimed at discredit, delay or prevent a change from being made. All collaborators tend to resist change for all the costs that come with it. This attitude is found, equally, between managers and collaborators; It may well be found in our office worker as well as in our sales and marketing manager; resistance to change does not consider position, department or organization.

There are three types of resistance to change, namely;

Logical resistance: This arises from the time and effort required to adjust to change, including the tasks to be learned in the new job.

Psychological resistance: this is made up of the individual attitudes and feelings of employees regarding change; We could talk here about variables such as fear of the unknown, mistrusting management leadership or feeling security threatened.

Sociological resistance: expressed in terms of the interests and values of the group, powerful forces that must be dealt with delicately; questions such as is the change consistent with group values? Will teamwork continue? could be generated among collaborators with this type of resistance.

These resistances must be managed effectively, if collaborators are to be protagonists in the change process.

There are also some factors that directly influence resistance to change, let's see:

Economic factors: this is the most obvious reason; Employees oppose change when they fear losing their jobs or when a new invention reduces the value of their skills, hurting their individual opportunities for advancement.

Discomfort factors: the collaborator feels threatened, because his life will tend to be more difficult; additional duties will be assigned.

Uncertainty factors: the new is always threatening, strange, generating fear, even when it is an improvement compared to the old; All this lies in the fact that not enough information is provided to the collaborator.

Symbology factors: symbols always represent something different, a symbol cannot be removed without threatening people's minds. When we want to operationalize the change with some new philosophy, its name is said and we do not go beyond that, that is, we give a symbol without a meaning.

Personal relationship factors: employees oppose changes that threaten their position or skills, acquired through their experience and socially valuable.

Resentment factors: employees feel uncomfortable and resentful, as the new philosophy to be implemented will bring an increase in orders and control.

Union attitude factors: these groups resist changes, as the administration sometimes does not consult them about it.

In an ordinary work situation, you cannot get absolute support every time a change is made. It is to be expected that our people will give moderate, or weak, or perhaps total opposition support.

These resistance factors can also bring benefits to the organization, to the extent that it can be an incentive for management to reexamine the proposals for change and confirm that they are appropriate. Management can also identify specific areas where a change could cause greater difficulties, taking corrective actions before more serious problems arise, motivating better communication regarding the change, generating acceptance.

In order to determine the intensity of the collaborators' feelings, their emotions and also to invite them to think and feel closer to the change, I would like to offer the following methodology that will allow us to extract information from the areas that should be treated with the greatest support., in a process of change.