Michael Hammer, author who coined in the 1980s the idea of "reengineering" defined as a "radical change in business processes to produce a drastic improvement", presents processes as the factors from which an organization can integrate all its human and technological components to function as a coherent and profitable system. The organization focused on processes, from isolated tasks to processes, from employees to professionals, from theory to action, from departments to integrated functions…
Author Michael Hammer's article in English Reengineering Work: Don't Automate, Wipe It Out, published by the Harvard Business Review between July and August 1990, essentially discarded the old notion of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it.", replacing it with a more ambitious, "Let's make it the best in the world.", and raises the following as relevant aspects:
Hammer's vision in his article mentions reengineering as a company-wide oriented design or redesign process based on the efficient use of information technology to eliminate the classic trade-off between decentralization (better service) and centralization (economy of scale).
In reengineering theories, organizational hierarchies and the representation of organizations in terms of different functions, are replaced through redesign, with processes that are oriented to focus on business processes and their results.
Modern information technology has allowed physical structures to move towards centralization in a virtual way, that is, geographically dispersed resources can be treated as if they were centralized.
It also highlights the following concepts: Adapt to change, Always deliver the highest degree of competence, Take initiative and take risks, Adapt to change, Make decisions. There must be efficiency and effectiveness, Make substantial improvements, You have to ask yourself if it is worth it and if the improvements are going to make the process faster and cheaper, You have to worry more about attitudes than knowledge. Regarding the Activities: Those that add value and cost. The new organization must make the most of the generation of wealth.
In short, to meet all the elements of the definition of process reengineering we need to identify:
- The decisive business results that are the objective and goal of our reengineering effort The processes that represent all the activities we carry out to produce the goods or services of our business The strategic value-added processes: that is, the A subset of all processes that are important to both our corporate strategy and our customers. The underpinnings: that is, the organizational systems, policies and structures that exist to enable our strategic value-added processes. A definition of “ rapid and radical redesign. ”In reengineeringThe key to success is in knowledge and skill, not luck. If you know the rules and avoid mistakes, you have every chance of success.
The text of Hammer's article considers in trying to correct a process instead of changing it, the most obvious way to fail in reengineering is not to redesign but to make changes to the processes and call them reengineering. This term has acquired a certain air of good tone lately and is applied to all kinds of programs that really have nothing to do with the radical need for business redesign; he had tried several times before to "fix" the old process, until he realized the need for radical-reengineering.
He comments in his project with this organization that a company first tries to automate the existing process, using computerized technology to speed up the flow of information and the execution of tasks. As a result, this automation consisted in equipping specialists with online computer terminals, into which they could input their individual efforts.
In the process, he frequently describes that organizations go to great lengths and expenses to avoid the radical changes that reengineering implies. Perhaps they reorganize, which means that they do not change the work processes at all but only the administrative boxes around the people who carry them out. Other companies contract, which just means employing fewer people to do the same job, or less work, in the same way.
He, Hammer, focuses this work on Ford Motor Co, when he redesigned his supplier payment process, the effects even reached the reception dock employees, who suddenly became decision makers. Instead of just stamping paper with times and dates, they were seen in the case of using a computer terminal to determine if the merchandise that arrived corresponded to a pending order. If not, they had a responsibility to reject and return it. People who previously had almost no responsibility, now had to think and make decisions. He then proceeds to explain that the reengineering process requires a new job qualification system, consolidation of many departments, redefinition of administrative authority, and a different style of labor relations.
Ignoring the values and beliefs of employees, people need some reason to perform well within the redesigned processes. It is not enough to install new processes; Management has to motivate employees to rise to the occasion by supporting the new values and beliefs that the processes demand. In other words, managers have to pay attention to what is going on in the minds of staff just as they pay attention to what is going on at their desks.
When Ford redesigned the way it pays its suppliers, the attitudes and behavior of its employees had to change as well. Purchasing staff could no longer see suppliers as adversaries who had to be defeated, they had to see them as Ford partners in a common business process.
Changes that require modifications of attitudes are not easily accepted. Making speeches is not enough. The new administrative systems have to cultivate the required values by rewarding the behavior that demonstrates them. But senior managers also have to give talks about these new values, and at the same time demonstrate their dedication to them through their personal behavior.
Achieving great results requires great aspirations. A critical test of these comes at the point where, during the course of reengineering, some suggest that a modest change will make the process work 10 percent better and at virtually no additional cost, as opposed to the painful alterations and suffering that create, reengineering.
The temptation is great to follow the easy path and be content with marginal improvement. But in the long run this is not such an improvement but rather a detriment. Marginal improvements, as a rule, complicate more. The current process, and subsequently more difficult to understand how things really work. Worse still, making additional investments of time or capital in a current process increases the reluctance of management to discard the process altogether. The most damaging thing is that the marginal measures reinforce a culture of incrementalism and make the company an unworthy entity.
Top management leadership is an indispensable prerequisite for success, but not just any top manager will do the trick. The leader has to be a person who understands reengineering and is fully committed to it. You must also be operations oriented and appreciate the relationship between operational performance and bottom line. Only a process-oriented senior executive capable of thinking through the entire value-added chain from product concept to sales and service can spearhead a reengineering effort.
Seniority and authority are not enough; Equally critical are understanding and a proper mental attitude.
Conclusions
The concept of reengineering from my point of view suggests an administrative and operations tool that appeals to common sense to be able to improve the services and products that a company offers through the re-planning of the functions that already exist to optimize all resources for the direct benefit of both shareholders and the customer himself.
Michael Hammer and James Champy members of the School of Systemic Management, taxed with its Reengineering, in 1994, a new form of administrative behavior in whose essence is discontinuous thinking proposing radical and spectacular improvements based on the reinvention of organizational processes aimed at customer satisfaction. His specific proposal lies in the conceptualization of a new paradigm of how to organize and conduct business by creating new principles and operational procedures.
Later James Champy presents a new book which includes as an essential point the Reengineering of the administrative due process based on the conviction of the vital role that it plays in the transformation of the remaining processes within an organization.
It seemed appropriate to include an excerpt from the following interview to broaden the perspective on the subject of reengineering: “After having invented the concept, with the co-authorship of the« best seller »« Reengineering The Corporation »and to energize the movement in In subsequent years, the fathers of reengineering followed different paths. This separation was visible this year with the launch of "Reengineering Management", by Champy and, a few months later, "Reengineering Revolution", by Hammer. Both agree that a high percentage of the reengineering efforts did not achieve the expected results. The difference is in the way they solve this problem. In Champy's opinion, the solution is to change the approach of the movement towards management reengineering,while Hammer considers it more important to detect the typical errors of the reengineering of the processes and to present a methodology to avoid them ”.
From the previous interview as well as the summary of the article in question, some ideas emerge such as:
- Like all the concepts that have been born to improve the administration of companies, a drastic and aggressive change is required to guarantee 100% effectiveness in terms of installation and obtaining results, otherwise, what will be obtained they will be hybrid systems that do not guarantee success, but rather the application of a passing fad… The greatest achievement is in the automotive and telecommunications industries, sectors that are always at the forefront in the application of knowledge technology. This type of tool is expensive, so in the beginning it will always be the large corporations that initiate these processes, going one step ahead over small, medium and micro companies.The use of external consultants is recommended for the methodology and programming of the installation of the tool to be used, but it is necessary to have internal project leaders who know about the operation for the implementation phase and development of changes in the companies. In reengineering, it is important to address two concepts simultaneously: one is the Reengineering of Work Processes and the second is the Reengineering of Management Concepts and Practices. Any administrative improvement process to be installed in a company is not immediate, it is slow (2-3 years) because it means doing things with good planning and like old wines, over time they polish their essence until they culminate with a good result; however in these times of "instantaneity",hurry and haste do not allow adequate management of time or resources.Reengineering today is in a second wave, trying to apply what is practical on the theoretical basis and trial and error research that began in 1990, leading the concept beyond industries such as production chains, the development of suitable personnel for this type of process and an attractive workplace where people feel good. Do not confuse Reengineering with "Downsizing", the first eliminates work while the second eliminates personnel. The costs involved in investing in improvement tools will always be a justifying factor to delay or not carry them out.trying to apply the practical on the theoretical basis and trial and error research that began in 1990, taking the concept beyond industries such as productive chains, the development of the ideal personnel for this type of process and an attractive workplace in where people feel good. Do not confuse Reengineering with "Downsizing", the first eliminates work while the second eliminates personnel. The costs involved in investing in improvement tools will always be a justifying factor to delay or not carry them out.trying to apply the practical on the theoretical basis and trial and error research that began in 1990, taking the concept beyond industries such as productive chains, the development of the ideal personnel for this type of process and an attractive workplace in where people feel good. Do not confuse Reengineering with "Downsizing", the first eliminates work while the second eliminates personnel. The costs involved in investing in improvement tools will always be a justifying factor to delay or not carry them out.Do not confuse Reengineering with "Downsizing", the first eliminates work while the second eliminates personnel. The costs involved in investing in improvement tools will always be a justifying factor to delay or not carry them out.Do not confuse Reengineering with "Downsizing", the first eliminates work while the second eliminates personnel. The costs involved in investing in improvement tools will always be a justifying factor to delay or not carry them out.
The concept of reengineering may not be new for the human being or for the organizations that comprise it, but the author gives us the methodology to follow so that reengineering goes from being a concept to action carried out with order.
I consider the reengineering issue very important, so much so that I would like to see it applied in reverse, that is, applied from small and medium-sized companies in a productive supply chain to large corporations, it seems to me that starting from the simplest to the more complex you can see results in a more tangible way.
I disagree with Hammer when he speaks that "the administration must motivate the workers", since the motivation occurs from my point of view in every human being from the inside out, however if I agree that a healthy work environment must be achieved to promote elements that lead to the improvement of both the employee and the corporation.
Information sources
- M. Hammer, Re-engineering work: Don't automate, obliterate, Harvard Business Rev. 68, 104 - 112, July - August (1990). Distribution channel re-engineering - organizational separation of the distribution and sales functions in the European market - mats abrahamsson, ∗ staffan brege and Andreas norrman - International Graduate School of Management and Industrial Engineering, University Sweden.Article: "The role of Mexico in the world", Professional Service of University Career for Students of the Master of Administration of UAEM.Article: "Reengineering, culture, values and paradigms", based on the book Reengineering of the corporation by Michael Hammer, Publica Sanloz Holonic.Article: "Systems for process reengineering". Francisco Figueroa Cajigas, ITESM Campus Monterrey, 1999.
Francisco Figueroa Cajigas. Systems for Process Reengineering.
Francisco Figueroa Cajigas. Systems for Process Reengineering.
The economy of scale is any savings in direct production costs as the volume produced grows. José A. Contreras.
Reengineering Work: don't Automate, Obliterate. Michael Hammer, Harvard Business Review, 1990. Division of Postgraduate Studies of the Faculty of Accounting and Administration of UNAM.
This school brings together Cybernetics, the Mathematical Theory of Management, Theory of Contingencies and the Theory of Systems and is represented by authors such as Norbert Wiener, Johann von Neumann, Ludwig von Bertalanffy, Daniel Katz, Robert L. Kahn and Stanford L. Optner among others. The systematic school proposes a new way of analyzing the organization, recognizing the importance of the relationships between the parts to achieve the purpose of the whole, in short the systemic approach.
María CCC, Xpertia consultant.
Jorge Nascimento Rodrigues interview with Hammer and Champy (1995)
