Cuestionarios

Kutschker (1994) suggests that at least three kinds of business process management can

be identified: (i) the management of ongoing business processes, (ii) the improvement of

business processes, and (iii) the re-engineering of business processes. Embedded in these

process management approaches are the three most influential business process

movements of Total Quality Management (TQM), the Learning Organisation, and

Business Process Reengineering (BPR). Using Kutschker‟s classification some of the key

issues are now discussed.

2.4.1 Management of ongoing processes

Management of the ongoing business processes focuses on the tasks to be performed and

the processes to be controlled. Davenport and Beers (1995) describe information about

execution, how long it takes and how much it costs to fill a customer order. What this „meta‟ date is not is a set of measures about the performance of products or services

(which are the outputs of processes). From their research of twenty US companies, many

of them Malcolm Baldrige quality award winners, they suggest that a "a key aspect of

success in process improvement is effective management of information about process performance". In addition to financial measures, firms need to manage the efficiency and

effectiveness of the day-to-day activities, yet little prescriptive literature exists to assist

firms in managing information about business processes.

Process benchmarking is another method of establishing relative performance. Process

benchmarking is: "A continuous activity which measures, compares and exchanges

information about the processes operated within a business, with other departments, divisions and organisations, to improve performance" (Poulson and Arnott 1996). In their

research of the leading UK retail financial services companies Poulson & Arnott revealed

that although there is a great deal of interest, few companies are actually process

benchmarking. Competitor benchmarking is well established but concentrates on the

comparison of financial results. This reveals little about the content of the business.

Benchmarking is being used as a tactical rather than strategic tool on an infrequent basis.

There is however, little evidence of internal benchmarking. There are no common

methods or data standards in place and most are using in-house approaches. Despite the

popularity of BPR, few organisations are structured by process. There is recognition by

many organisations, that their skills and awareness are below industry average and despite

a willingness to participate, most do not have the ability to make the necessary changes

(or to make the measurement required). Confidentiality is important but most are prepared

to benchmark outside their own industry. Membership of benchmarking clubs and

2.4.2 Improvement of business processes

The second approach deals with the incremental and continuous improvement of business

processes that is most closely aligned with the Total Quality Management movement. The

best established of the three movements discussed here, it features heavily the continuous

improvement of processes with a focus on customers; setting of targets, standards, and the

reduction of output variability; the reliance on statistical data; and the education of

managers and staff in TQM principles. Pioneered by W. Edwards Demming and Joseph

Juran the dual approach of culture and measurement was to become the cornerstone of TQM. Described as „Demming‟s fourteen points‟ this list has become the underpinning

philosophy of this movement although they are not meant to be tablets of stone. An

example of such an approach would be an improvement through process standardization.

Stanton (1999) describes how IBM responded to the globalisation of its large corporate

customers by moving towards standardizing its worldwide operations to offer common

processes such as order fulfilment and product development to its customers. He goes on

to describe how companies who have adopted a 'process enterprise' mentality can benefit

from:

(i) Overhead costs being lowered, as it requires only one 'process owner', set of

documentation, training material and information systems,

(ii) Presents one face to its suppliers and customers, and

(iii) Promotes flexibility in labour resourcing and responsiveness to peaks in

demand.

In contrast 'process diversity' allows a company to serve different customers in different

ways. The example of Texas Instruments is used to illustrate how a single order fulfilment

process would not adequately satisfy the diversity of requirement between their industrial

customers demanding rapid response to design changes to digital signal chips, and

retailers who want fast replenishment of standard items. Subsequently they have

Popularised by Senge (1990), the learning organisation is the second of the three most

influential business process movements examined here. In keeping with BPR it shares the

belief that radical rethinking is needed to break away from existing assumptions.

However the learning organisation majors on the people side of process innovation.

“People in learning organisations see beyond simple cause-and-effect linear chains to interrelationships and dynamic complexity. Learning is a team skill that requires vision and experimentation” (Keen and Knapp 1996). According to Senge the learning

organisation exhibits five component technologies: (i) Systems thinking, (ii) personal

mastery, (iii) mental models, (iv) shared vision, and (v) team learning.

Caulkin (1997) describes how de-layering and downsizing more often resulted in "a

forgetting rather than a learning organisation", as companies found that they had

"outsourced the ability to make the wheel, let alone invent it". This „corporate amnesia‟

that downsized and reengineered companies can experience as informal networks and

memory systems are disrupted, contributed to their poor performance when compared with those companies that outperformed their industries while enjoying „stable structures‟

(The Economist, April 1996).

2.4.3 Reengineering of business processes

The final approach is the third of the process movements, Business Processes

Reengineering (BPR), the most influential (and controversial), which can be defined as:

"A conscious reshaping of an organisation behind a new corporate vision, the market place and the customer. BPR‟s ultimate objective is to yield sustainable improvements in profitability, productivity, service and quality, whilst maximising the potential of the individual and the team”

(Pearson & Skinner 1993).

BPR, also known as business process redesign, process innovation, and core process

past few years, and can no longer be considered just a „management fad‟. However, with

its roots in „Taylorism‟ (Work Study, Organisation & Methods, and Industrial

Engineering), BPR quickly became the mechanism for aggressive cost reduction

programmes which led to massive layoffs. This prompted one of its creators (Davenport

1996) to comment, "Reengineering didn't start out as a code word for mindless

bloodshed". Of course „reengineering‟ implies that business processes were once

engineered or designed, and changes to operating procedures and methods don't happen

without intervention. Someone, or a group of people need to 'architect' these changes.

They need to design, plan and organise the complex relationships between what people

do, the tasks and activities that make up the processes, and how it affects the sales or

service proposition. But are companies reengineering their processes in order to make

them 'unique' to their business, or are they following a commodity approach as they adopt

industry standards and best practice?

Hammer (1990) offers the following 'principles of reengineering':

(a) Organise around outcomes, not tasks;

(b) Have those who use the output of the process perform the process;

(c) Subsume information processing work into the real work that produces the

information;

(d) Treat geographically dispersed resources as though they were centralised;

(e) Link parallel activities instead of integrating their results;

(f) Put the decision point where the work is performed, and build control into the

process; and

(g) Capture information once and at the source.

Once again the literature is not short of popular definitions of BPR, and describes

reengineering in terms of being radical; a fundamental rethinking; transformation and

quantum, dramatic and orders of magnitude improvements. Table 2.2 compares the main

points of the definitions that follow.

“Radical redesign of business processes to achieve quantum improvements in business performance, as perceived by the customer and realised by the company” (Littlejohn

1996).

“The fundamental rethinking and redesign of business processes to achieve dramatic improvements in critical contemporary measures of performance such as cost, quality, service, speed”. (Hammer and Champy 1993).

“Stepping back from a process in inquire as to its overall business objective, and then effecting creative and radical change to realise orders of magnitude improvements in the way that objective is accomplished”. (Davenport 1993).

“A cross-functional initiative, focused on business processes, requiring simultaneous change to organisation design, culture, and information technology that enables radical performance improvements”. (Stoddard et al. 1996)

“The holistic approach to transform core processes and hence to achieve radical improvements in business performance”. (Institute of BPR).

Business Process Reengineering (BPR) can be defined as: “A conscious reshaping of an

organisation behind a new corporate vision, the marketplace and the customer. BPR‟s ultimate objective is to yield sustainable improvements in productivity, service and quality, whilst maximising the potential of the individual and the team”. (Pearson &

Business Process Redesign is "the analysis and design of workflows and processes within

and between organisations" (Davenport & Short 1990).

“The critical analysis and radical redesign of existing business processes to achieve breakthrough improvements in performance measures.” (Teng et al 1994).

ACTION UNDERTAKEN

SUBJECT OF THE ACTION

THE OBJECTIVE FOR

WHO‟S BENEFIT

HOW

1 Radical design Business

processes Quantum improvements in business performance Customer and company 2 Fundamental rethinking and redesign Business processes Dramatic improvements in critical contemporary measures of performance (costs, quality, service, speed)

3 Effective creative and radical change

Business processes

To realise orders of magnitude improvements

Stepping back from a process to inquire of its overall business objective 4 Simultaneous change to

organisation design, culture and information technology Business processes Radical performance improvements A cross functional initiative

5 Transform Core processes Radical improvements in

business performance Holistic approach 6 Conscious reshaping of an organisation Yield sustainable improvements in profitability, productivity, service and quality

Corporate vision, market place and the customer Whilst maximising the potential of thee individual and the team

7 Analysis and design Workflows and

processes within and between organisations 8 Critical analysis and

radical redesign Existing business processes To achieve breakthrough improvements in performance measures

Table 2.2: Business Process Reengineering definition analysis

The philosophies and characteristics of the three principal and most influential process

movements (TQM, The Learning Organisation, and BPR) are shown below, and can be

differentiated primarily by (i) their approach to transformation as either continuous

incremental, or immediate radical change, (ii) the primary focus and emphasis is either on

action and the type of process that is targeted for action. Table 2.3 summarises the main

business process movements along with their key characteristics.

PRINCIPAL PROCESS MOVEMENTS

TQM LEARNING ORGANISATION BPR Approach to transformation Continuous Incremental improvement of processes with a commitment to customers.

The people side of process transformation that embraces radical rethinking to break away from existing assumptions and beliefs.

Immediate radical change in business processes targeting dysfunctional processes.

Primary focus

People as primary focus with a reduction in output variability.

People as primary focus. The creation of knowledge is the foundation of organisational capabilities.

Cross-functional streamlining of work activities. Workflow as a primary focus.

Breadth of recommendations

Disciplined backed by rigorous education of workers, supervisors and managers.

Organisational capability Fundamental destruction and rebuilding of processes.

Table 2.3: Summary of the three principal business process movements

2.4.4 The closely coupled relationship between BPR & Information Technology

The traditional „functional‟ application of technology, by automating existing „manual‟

tasks and activities, „paving the cow paths‟ as Hammer (1990) described it is no longer

acceptable. Information Technology is a fundamental component of any modern business

today, whether its use is as a result of a planned and managed introduction, or

alternatively a tactical initiative to keep in step with its competitors. Davenport and Short

(1990) describe the relationship between BPR and IT as a 'recursive one' (Figure 2.2).

This recursive relationship would suggest that it is a self-sustained process, which

unprompted, could start from nothing and grow exponentially. It does however require

intervention from senior management, employees and technology specialists. Of course, a

positive loop can also reverse itself and then generate exponential decay. The successful

utilisation of technology and the application of BPR rely on the organisation identifying

Information technology capabilities Business process redesign

(+)

+ + which can influence defines the use of

Figure 2.2: The recursive relationship between IT and BPR

“The real benefits from IT accrue only with fundamental transformation of business

strategy choices, internal processes (organisation structure and processes), the IT platform, and the IS architecture's” (Venkatraman 1991). It disregards conventional

„functional‟ structuring within organisations, and requires cross-functional co-operation

and skills in business analysis, systems development, project management and

organisational change. Davenport & Short (1990) refer to this broadened, recursive view

of IT and BPR as the „new industrial engineering‟.

Hammer (1990) considers IT as the key enabler of BPR, which he considers as "radical

change." He prescribes the use of IT to challenge the assumptions inherent in the work

processes that have existed since long before the advent of modern computer and

communications technology. He argues that at the heart of reengineering is the notion of

"discontinuous thinking or recognising and breaking away from the outdated rules and fundamental assumptions underlying operations..." These rules of work design are based

on assumptions about technology, people, and organisational goals that no longer hold.

Davenport & Short (1990) argue that BPR requires taking a broader view of both IT and

than an automating or mechanising force: it allows an organisation to fundamentally

reshape the way business is done. Business processes represent a new approach to co-

ordination across the firm. Its promise and its ultimate impact is to be the most powerful

tool for reducing the costs of co-ordination. Davenport and Short outline the following

capabilities that reflect the roles that IT can play in BPR: transactional, geographical,

automatical, analytical, informational, sequential, knowledge management, tracking, and

disintermediation.

An alternative approach is espoused by Smith (1999). He suggests a concurrent

engineering approach that involves the simultaneous reengineering of business processes

alongside the selection of an ERP. He argues that to leverage the best practices from the

software an organisation needs to implement as close to a “plain vanilla implementation”

as is possible, while recognising the embedded practices within the ERP. It is important

that both software and processes are considered equally, and that after the exhaustive

evaluation process of the software which is typical of most companies, then it is sensible

to get the value from the product in the way that it was designed.

In document Diagnóstico del proceso productivo y formulación de propuestas para incrementar la competitividad en la empresa viveros AGG, Arequipa 2019 (página 96-99)