In-no-va-tion : A new idea, method or device Merriam-Webster
The argument that mature companies fail because they fail to innovate can be countered by the argument that small companies fail because they try to innovate too much. No matter the size or maturity of the organization, Business Process Re-engineering (BPR) is a viable way for organizations to innovate. When looking to innovate, a distinction can be drawn: discrete innovation and continuous innovation. BPR is a continuous innovation method for businesses to improve their systems, a way to make them stronger and more competitive, to save them money, make them more effective, and so on. Because BPR is a method of continuous innovation, the focus should be on the continuous – BPR is a journey rather than a destination.
In destination thinking we only look at business processes as if we just need to fix them once. How do you know if you're using destination thinking? Your goal is something like: to re-engineer n processes by such-and-such a date. The focus is on finishing the project.
On the other hand, with journey thinking, you look at tackling the processes from a holistic perspective. Here your goal is to identify the process(es) that, when re-engineered, give you the biggest bang-for-the-buck and work on those first. The focus is on the gains you get while actually doing the work of re-engineering.
In the late 1980's I was fortunate to have worked for a company that understood the journey and we were re-engineering processes before the term BPR was even coined. We called it total quality management at the time. Even then, technology was the enabler. We took a look at where waste was occurring -- for any resource: materials, people, equipment. We quantified the waste and tried to put a cost to it (just back-of-the-envelope calculations and estimates) to see what the cost of the waste was. We then took a stab at how much we could improve waste identified. We chose the three of four with the most potential savings and we set off in teams to come up with solutions.
First year out was a tremendous success. The organization got a better feel for the waste that was occurring and the teams got a good feel for ways to solve these waste problems. We always used the estimates as our measure of success. If one estimate was to reduce packaging waste by 50% - from 2.3% to 1.25%, say, then the team succeeded when it reached that goal. There was usually no one cause of the problem, but in general there were 4 or 5 little things that contributed the most. We found them and fixed them. The projects weren't just related to materials (we just saw more value in tackling them first) and the solutions were often system based.
Maybe we met the goals, maybe we even surpassed them. Always, the gains were from actually doing the work – we learned about effective brainstorming, about the value of estimates and 'good enough'. We learned about the cost of not fixing a problem. We learned about team work and winning teams and listening to each other. There was nothing to implement (specifically). There was always the measure of starting point and ending point resource waste. Benefits were tangible.
I've worked on projects with destination thinking too -- sadly, I'm not even sure we fixed the 'problems' and, for sure we didn't get the journey benefits. The fundamental difference was not the tools used (Pareto's, cost/benefits, cause/effect) it was the focus on finishing rather than learning. Implementation instead of strategy. The cost savings? Well that's the kicker – these projects typically delivered more information (management reports) -- using more resources! Learning from these reports could help change the business some day. The destination people are going to get through this BPR thing one way or another. They're going to take all of the current processes and they're going to systematically re-engineer them (with software to help with the fundamental activities of business – things like inventory management, planning, record keeping, communication). I think they'll miss the point!
0 comments:
Post a Comment