	Why ads?

		BPR and Organisational Culture

Appendix 12
Summary of findings and possible further research

The questions marked by 'Q' refer to the questions on the survey questionnaire and also the headings in chapter 6 where the results were analysed.

Quest. Summary of Findings Questions for Possible Future Research

Q7. Information about the respondents

Sample was biased towards financial institutions. Do other industry sectors and/or smaller organisations produce similar findings and conclusions?

These are 'paper factories' currently undergoing radical structural changes and 'down-sizing' Do organisations that are not making significant staff redundant produce similar findings and conclusions?

Impact on staff will be significant. How does the threat of redundancy impact staff perform?

Q1 Information about the BPR projects

Current projects have a much longer timescales than completed ones. Why are timescales lengthening? Does it indicate more ambitious projects or the increasing experience of practitioners indicating a need for more conservative timescales?
Are there methods to better estimate project timescales when undertaking BPR which involves complex organisational change? What existing change management experience is relevant for BPR and what is not?
What are the risks with such long projects?

Q2 Information about the scale of the organisational changes

Respondent's organisations are under-going extensive and radical change both in scale and scope. Are middle management particularly under attack as a result of BPR? What are the implications for leadership when a whole stratum is under pressure or eliminated?
What are the implications for lower level staff (e.g. loss of traditional promotion opportunities?)

Hierarchical style are being dispensed with mainly in favour of process structures but matrix and decentralised are common. Is the use of an intermediate structural type seen as an appropriate, more cautious, intermediate stage towards process working, or is it management's lack of confidence, ability or potential loss of power that inhibits fully embracing process methods?

A number were embracing a mixed type of structures (e.g. process and matrix). What are the organisational implications for mixed structures? What are the benefits, disadvantages and risks?

Over half are moving from a role management style towards a directive style. Those already using directive are moving towards self management. Is the use of directive management seen as an appropriate, more cautious, intermediate stage towards self-management or is their lack of management confidence and trust in self management?
If management is moving away from a role style then why are so many emphasising new procedures, rules, and regulations?

Q3 Information about the change techniques used

Overall, organisations emphasised harder, coercive and management to employee techniques over the softer, passive, and employee to management ones. What are the implications of the different techniques for employee behaviour, responsiveness, feelings, and attitudes? Are these techniques symptomatic of the recession, or of management's approach or are they the best techniques?

Group Organisational Development and individual therapy are the least used techniques. Why are these techniques so little used? Are they considered too soft and the benefits hard to quantify?

Q4 Information about the reasons why the techniques were chosen

The results are inconclusive. Do most organisations see BPR and Change Management consultants addressing the whole hard-soft spectrum, or do they only perceive certain parts of the spectrum as needing to be addressed?
Are the type and range of techniques of techniques decided before calling in consultants or are they suggested by the consultants?
Why are the soft techniques avoided? Is it lack of demonstrable proof of results, poor image, poor selling by the specialist consultants, sticking to previously used techniques, etc. etc.?

Q5 Information about the resulting employee behavioural improvements

Acquisition of new skills and knowledge, co-operative team working and cost focus are the most reported employee behavioural benefits. Did management expressly target these? Which techniques or mix of techniques most influenced these improvements? What was the content and context of the technique.

Empowerment, Creation of innovative ideas are slow to be taken up by employees. Why is this? Is it lack of commitment to the organisation?
Given that BPR is supposed to be all about the 'clean sheet of paper' then should lack of innovation be a concern? Are management looking for creativity and what are the implications of it? How can creativity be improved?

Over half reported poor performance. It appears management were looking for improvement in all areas. Why is this? Are expectation too high? Are these too early days? Are the right things being measured in the right way?
How important is the content of the technique (e.g. what was communicated), the aims and expectations of the management (e.g. was innovation important), and the extent of the change (e.g. was an autocratic management style prevalent beforehand)?
How important is the context of the situation (e.g. the recession, the historic western preoccupation with hard measures and financial performance)?

Q6 Views as to whether employee values and beliefs can be changed.

Management definitely believed that employees values and beliefs could be changed to align them to the organisation Why are the ethics of changing such fundamental inner feeling? Why wasn't ethics raised as an issue?
What are the implications if an organisation changes these every so often?
How and who decides what the values & beliefs should be?

Other than the need for time there appears little consensus as to other factors or requirements needed to achieve this. Are their common guidelines, methods and techniques for changing employees values and beliefs?

Q1 & Q6: Comparisons between whether beliefs can be changed and whether BPR project has completed or is in-progress

Companies that have completed their BPR projects are more positive that values and beliefs can be changed. Do management simply perceive this or do employees actually change their values and beliefs.

Q2 & Q3: Comparison between extent of change and change techniques

Companies with more extensive change do not use more extensive change techniques. If companies did use more extensive change techniques, would the change be easier and the outcome improved?

A number of respondents had yet to introduced some of the techniques. Why are some companies slow or reactive to introducing some techniques? Are they using a contingency approach? Is this appropriate and what are the risks?

Q2 & Q5: Comparisons between impact on employees of down-sizing and employee improvements.

No correlation found. How does down-sizing impact the morale and performance of those employees who remain?
Does the scale of the down-sizing have any bearing?

Q4 & Q3: Comparison between reasons for choosing the techniques and the type of techniques used

Use of consultants does not appear to correlate to the types of techniques. Which source if any is/are influencing management in their choice of techniques?

Q5 & Q1: Comparisons between employee improvements and completion or duration todate of the BPR project

Change techniques take time to have an effect on employee performance. What are realistic timescales.
Does the size of an organisation have a linear or log affect?
Do management become disgruntled after a certain period?

Projects of a duration greater than 3 years (36 months) show a reducing degree of improvement. If so what are the implementation implications?
Are improvements taken for granted after a certain period? If so what are the implications for ongoing improvements and further BPR projects?

Q5 & Q3: Comparisons between employee improvements and techniques used

The more extensive techniques an organisation uses then the more employee improvements that will result provided that the range of techniques includes hard techniques. Is further research needed to verify this?
Is there a best sequence for introducing these techniques?
At what speed should they be introduced?
Are some techniques more appropriate / not appropriate for different situations?
Is there a best mix?

For best results the organisation should include both hard and soft techniques. Are other techniques appropriate or better (e.g. training, bench-marking, customer feedback)?

To Bibliography

[Front Page] [Executive Summary] [Abstract] [Content] [1 Introduction] [2 BPR] [3 Culture] [4 BPR & Culture]
[5 Preliminary Research] [6 Findings] [7 Summary] [8 Conclusions] [Appendices] [Bibliography]

Original report: January 1995 This page created: March 2000 © Managing Change 1995,96,97,98,99,2000 www.managingchange.com

[Contact] [Company] [Disclaimer] [Privacy] [Legal] [Copyright Fair Use] [Feedback] [Publications]
[Publicity] [Why Ads?] [What's New] [What's Coming] [Technical Info]

[Home] [SiteSearch Form]

[For a Full list of Contents see the Site Map]

To Follow: VCR controls

Quest.	Summary of Findings	Questions for Possible Future Research
Q7. Information about the respondents
	Sample was biased towards financial institutions.	Do other industry sectors and/or smaller organisations produce similar findings and conclusions?
	These are 'paper factories' currently undergoing radical structural changes and 'down-sizing'	Do organisations that are not making significant staff redundant produce similar findings and conclusions?
	Impact on staff will be significant.	How does the threat of redundancy impact staff perform?
Q1 Information about the BPR projects
	Current projects have a much longer timescales than completed ones.	Why are timescales lengthening? Does it indicate more ambitious projects or the increasing experience of practitioners indicating a need for more conservative timescales? Are there methods to better estimate project timescales when undertaking BPR which involves complex organisational change? What existing change management experience is relevant for BPR and what is not? What are the risks with such long projects?
Q2 Information about the scale of the organisational changes
	Respondent's organisations are under-going extensive and radical change both in scale and scope.	Are middle management particularly under attack as a result of BPR? What are the implications for leadership when a whole stratum is under pressure or eliminated? What are the implications for lower level staff (e.g. loss of traditional promotion opportunities?)
	Hierarchical style are being dispensed with mainly in favour of process structures but matrix and decentralised are common.	Is the use of an intermediate structural type seen as an appropriate, more cautious, intermediate stage towards process working, or is it management's lack of confidence, ability or potential loss of power that inhibits fully embracing process methods?
	A number were embracing a mixed type of structures (e.g. process and matrix).	What are the organisational implications for mixed structures? What are the benefits, disadvantages and risks?
	Over half are moving from a role management style towards a directive style. Those already using directive are moving towards self management.	Is the use of directive management seen as an appropriate, more cautious, intermediate stage towards self-management or is their lack of management confidence and trust in self management? If management is moving away from a role style then why are so many emphasising new procedures, rules, and regulations?
Q3 Information about the change techniques used
	Overall, organisations emphasised harder, coercive and management to employee techniques over the softer, passive, and employee to management ones.	What are the implications of the different techniques for employee behaviour, responsiveness, feelings, and attitudes? Are these techniques symptomatic of the recession, or of management's approach or are they the best techniques?
	Group Organisational Development and individual therapy are the least used techniques.	Why are these techniques so little used? Are they considered too soft and the benefits hard to quantify?
Q4 Information about the reasons why the techniques were chosen
	The results are inconclusive.	Do most organisations see BPR and Change Management consultants addressing the whole hard-soft spectrum, or do they only perceive certain parts of the spectrum as needing to be addressed? Are the type and range of techniques of techniques decided before calling in consultants or are they suggested by the consultants? Why are the soft techniques avoided? Is it lack of demonstrable proof of results, poor image, poor selling by the specialist consultants, sticking to previously used techniques, etc. etc.?
Q5 Information about the resulting employee behavioural improvements
	Acquisition of new skills and knowledge, co-operative team working and cost focus are the most reported employee behavioural benefits.	Did management expressly target these? Which techniques or mix of techniques most influenced these improvements? What was the content and context of the technique.
	Empowerment, Creation of innovative ideas are slow to be taken up by employees.	Why is this? Is it lack of commitment to the organisation? Given that BPR is supposed to be all about the 'clean sheet of paper' then should lack of innovation be a concern? Are management looking for creativity and what are the implications of it? How can creativity be improved?
	Over half reported poor performance. It appears management were looking for improvement in all areas.	Why is this? Are expectation too high? Are these too early days? Are the right things being measured in the right way? How important is the content of the technique (e.g. what was communicated), the aims and expectations of the management (e.g. was innovation important), and the extent of the change (e.g. was an autocratic management style prevalent beforehand)? How important is the context of the situation (e.g. the recession, the historic western preoccupation with hard measures and financial performance)?
Q6 Views as to whether employee values and beliefs can be changed.
	Management definitely believed that employees values and beliefs could be changed to align them to the organisation	Why are the ethics of changing such fundamental inner feeling? Why wasn't ethics raised as an issue? What are the implications if an organisation changes these every so often? How and who decides what the values & beliefs should be?
	Other than the need for time there appears little consensus as to other factors or requirements needed to achieve this.	Are their common guidelines, methods and techniques for changing employees values and beliefs?
Q1 & Q6: Comparisons between whether beliefs can be changed and whether BPR project has completed or is in-progress
	Companies that have completed their BPR projects are more positive that values and beliefs can be changed.	Do management simply perceive this or do employees actually change their values and beliefs.
Q2 & Q3: Comparison between extent of change and change techniques
	Companies with more extensive change do not use more extensive change techniques.	If companies did use more extensive change techniques, would the change be easier and the outcome improved?
	A number of respondents had yet to introduced some of the techniques.	Why are some companies slow or reactive to introducing some techniques? Are they using a contingency approach? Is this appropriate and what are the risks?
Q2 & Q5: Comparisons between impact on employees of down-sizing and employee improvements.
	No correlation found.	How does down-sizing impact the morale and performance of those employees who remain? Does the scale of the down-sizing have any bearing?
Q4 & Q3: Comparison between reasons for choosing the techniques and the type of techniques used
	Use of consultants does not appear to correlate to the types of techniques.	Which source if any is/are influencing management in their choice of techniques?
Q5 & Q1: Comparisons between employee improvements and completion or duration todate of the BPR project
	Change techniques take time to have an effect on employee performance.	What are realistic timescales. Does the size of an organisation have a linear or log affect? Do management become disgruntled after a certain period?
	Projects of a duration greater than 3 years (36 months) show a reducing degree of improvement.	If so what are the implementation implications? Are improvements taken for granted after a certain period? If so what are the implications for ongoing improvements and further BPR projects?
Q5 & Q3: Comparisons between employee improvements and techniques used
	The more extensive techniques an organisation uses then the more employee improvements that will result provided that the range of techniques includes hard techniques.	Is further research needed to verify this? Is there a best sequence for introducing these techniques? At what speed should they be introduced? Are some techniques more appropriate / not appropriate for different situations? Is there a best mix?
	For best results the organisation should include both hard and soft techniques.	Are other techniques appropriate or better (e.g. training, bench-marking, customer feedback)?

BPR and Organisational Culture

Appendix 12 Summary of findings and possible further research

Appendix 12
Summary of findings and possible further research