ArticlePDF Available

Abstract

We embarked on a case study to explore one organization’s experiences with radical change for the purpose of uncovering how they achieved success. The organization we examined was Honeywell Inc. in Phoenix, Arizona, USA. From the interview data, we were able to devise a set of ten lessons to help others transform successfully. Two important lessons stand out above the rest. First, execution of a carefully developed change plan separates the high performers from less successful BPR projects. Second, recognition that dealing with change is difficult and complicated is not enough. Top management should make change management a top priority and communicate the change vision across the organization.
A BPR Case Study at Honeywell
David J. Paper
Utah State University
3515 Old Main Hill, BISE Department
Logan, UT 84322
Phone: 435-797-2456
FAX: 435-797-2351
E-Mail: dpaper@b202.usu.edu
James A. Rodger
Indiana University of Pennsylvania
MIS and Decision Sciences Department
203 Eberly College of Business
Indiana, PA 15705
Phone: 724-357-5944
FAX: 724-357-4831
E-Mail: jrodger@grove.iup.edu
Parag C. Pendharkar
Penn State Harrisburg
School of Business
777 West Harrisburg Pike
Middletown, PA 17057
Phone: 717-948-6028
FAX: 717-948-6456
E-Mail: pxp19@psu.edu
September 2, 2015
A BPR Case Study at Honeywell
INTRODUCTION
Global competition is driving organizations to become leaner and more streamlined. Many organizations
have turned to business process reengineering (BPR) as a means to radically change the way they conduct business.
However, dramatic improvements have failed to materialize in many instances (Davenport, 1993; Hammer &
Champy, 1993; Kotter, 1995). We thereby embark on a case study to deeply explore one organization’s experiences
with radical change for the purpose of uncovering how they achieved success. The organization we examine is
Honeywell Inc. in Phoenix, AZ. From the data, we devise a set of lessons to help others transform successfully.
HONEYWELL (IAC Plant, Phoenix, AZ)
The Honeywell industrial automation and control (IAC) business unit designs, manufactures, and
configures the sophisticated TDC 3000X family of systems. These systems enable its customers (refineries,
chemical plants, and paper mills around the world) to achieve world-class process-control capability.
In late 1989, the management team began a three-year world-class-manufacturing (WCM) program to
examine lagging performance results. WCM established ambitious goals for defect reduction, short-cycle
production, and materials management. Specific goals included reducing defects by a factor of ten (1,000%) and
cycle time by a factor of five (500%).
WCM was created to provide resources and take a system-wide view of the plant. WCM supported a
focused-factory environment that harnesses the potential of teams. Instead of workers being assigned to a specific
area on the factory floor, teams of multi-skilled workers were charged with building entire products or modules from
start to finish. WCM provided resources to teams based on the process rather than piecemeal events or tasks.
Training took on a system-wide view. In 1990, the entire plant was shut down and everyone was taken to another
location for an intensive six-hour session. During the session, the need for radical change was articulated. In
addition, management explained what the broad changes would be and how the changes would impact the workers.
To support the factory-focused paradigm, the “all-salaried” workforce was evaluated on a “pay for
performance” basis. Factory-focused teams were rewarded for their performance. In a little over three years, teams
1
helped reduce defect rates by 70%, customer rejects by 57%, cycle time on parts by 72%, inventory investment by
46%, and customer lead times by over 70%.
Improvements didn’t come without struggle. One problem was management of “white spaces”. White
spaces are gaps between different links in the internal-supply chain. Management found out that teams along the
value chain for each product line had a tendency to sub-optimize the total supply chain because they were primarily
focused on their own areas. To get the teams to think in unison, the Director of Strategic Planning and
Organizational Development took the three team managers aside and told them that they were responsible for the
whole product line. Performance evaluations would be based on how the entire product line performed.
Honeywell IAC observed through trial and error that teams needed to have control over things that impact
their performance. When teams failed, the cause could almost always be attributed to lack of authority to make
decisions where the work was actually being done. Another improvement that helped teams work well together was
a change of work environment. Recently, manufacturing was moved to a handsomely landscaped site. Besides
being a beautiful site, manufacturing facilities were designed to better suit a flow scheme. The flow scheme was
designed to facilitate a “pull” system that is triggered by customer orders.
Conversion to an all-salaried workforce, worker empowerment, compensation for creativity, and a system-
view helped IAC vastly improve its quality and performance for its customers. However, IAC management was not
satisfied. To complement the WCM program and facilitate a culture of continuous improvement, IAC embraced a
solid ISO 9000-certified quality program, a strong supplier alliance program, a globally oriented customer
satisfaction organization, and a reconstituted WCM program office.
Honeywell calls their factory-focused program the TotalPlantTM. The mission of TotalPlantTM is to unify
business and control information to enable global customer satisfaction. To accomplish this mission, the plant is
migrating to fully integrated hardware, software, and services that support plant management, process management,
and field management. TotalPlantTM business and control information is also used to facilitate planning,
implementation, and world-class applications. The TotalPlantTM paradigm is not limited to the IAC site. It is
intended to support global delivery of its manufactured products, serve the needs of over 40 regional TotalPlants and
delivery centers worldwide, and align with global suppliers.
2
METHODOLOGY
Case study analysis of Honeywell IAC began with a site visit on August 16, 1997. Data were gathered
through late 1999 from interviews, annual reports, observation, e-mail, and informal discussions. Three people were
formally interviewed including the Director of Strategic Planning and Organizational Development, the Manager of
Worldwide Manufacturing Programs, and the Manager of Distribution Systems. Contact has been consistently
maintained via telephone, e-mail, and fax.
The interviews lasted between one and two hours. We used a set of open-ended questions, related to BPR,
to guide interview discussions. However, spontaneity was encouraged by allowing respondents to discuss any
issues they considered important to the research. Transcripts of the interviews were transcribed within 2 days to
reduce information loss.
BPR LITERATURE
Many early BPR initiatives failed to achieve predicted success (Davenport & Short, 1990; Hammer, 1990;
Kotter, 1995). However, some organizations have been able to achieve dramatic results from BPR. For instance,
Caterpillar, Inc. reported cost savings between $10 and $20 million over a five-year period from BPR initiatives
(Paper & Dickinson, 1997). Caterpillar ties much of its success to its BPR methodology. Its methodology is
systematic as it provides a disciplined problem-solving approach and acts as a rallying point for everyone involved
along the process path. It also has in place an organizational structure conducive to cross-functional teamwork and a
management structure designed for facilitation of empowered workers. Many of the earlier BPR projects reported in
the literature failed to articulate and implement a BPR methodology and a proper structure.
There are few examples of in-depth studies of BPR in the literature (Fuglseth & Gronhaug, 1997). Caron,
J.R. Jarvenpaa, S.L., & Stoddard (1994) examined BPR initiatives at CIGNA for over five years. They offer a set of
general guidelines, but fail to mention the importance of a systematic BPR methodology. Davenport & Stoddard
(1994) addressed various myths associated with BPR based on detailed case study analysis of many companies.
They conclude that successful BPR is not an IT initiative, but a business initiative with the goal of rethinking
business practices to satisfy the needs of its customers and other constituents. Kotter (1995) synthesized information
and knowledge gained from observations of more than 100 companies into a set of eight steps to facilitate
3
organizational transformation. Paper and Dickson (1997) examined BPR initiatives at Caterpillar. They found that
BPR is driven by a business need and requires support from top management, a systematic methodology, and an
organizational structure that supports and rewards process thinking.
THE TotalPlantTM PARADIGM
The paradigm is based on four principles of success — process mapping, fail-safing, teamwork, and
communication. Each of these principles is critical to realizing the TotalPlantTM. However, every team member
must be educated in all four of the principles and empowered to use what they have learned to solve business and
manufacturing process problems. The major obstacle to change is the employee attitude that “things are O.K.”, so
why change.
TotalPlantTM developed a need for people to change. It created a level of dissatisfaction. We sent key
people to benchmark HP (Hewlett Packard) to see what was happening. When the people returned, they
felt depressed that HP was better. Since they witnessed a major competitor doing better, they better
understood the need to improve. They wanted to beat HP. The paradigm gave them a foundation to work
with. (E. J. Janik, Manager Distribution Systems, personal communication, August 16, 1997)
1. Process Mapping
Process mapping is a tool that allows one to model the flow of any business process in a graphical form.
The process map allows one to see how the process actually works across functional boundaries. It thereby enables
all employees to see how the business process actually works and how it can be changed to be more effective.
Process mapping also creates a common language for dealing with changes to business processes.
An experienced facilitator conducts process mapping training. The role of the facilitator is to encourage
interaction and creative input from everyone by throwing questions back to the group. The idea is to facilitate
learning by discovery and inquiry, not by being told what to do.
The training philosophy at Honeywell focuses on educating employees about the importance of total
customer satisfaction and world-class manufacturing. It is important for employees to understand that optimization
of the whole system is the goal, not individual departments or subsystems. Three principles underlie the philosophy
— be non-blaming and non-judgmental, focus on process and results, and consider the big picture.
Many times organizations focus on individual and/or subsystem results to the detriment of the whole
system. Results are important, but how they are achieved is equally important. A focus on process helps to
4
rationalize enterprise-wide results over functional ones. If the process is not understood or misunderstood, it is more
difficult to justify sub-optimal results in an individual area. The only important result is total customer satisfaction.
Process thinking helps to justify overall results because the people involved understand how and why it is
successful. Functional thinking concentrates only on individual performance, not enterprise performance. For
process thinking to work, employees must be empowered to do their jobs since they are the ones that actually do the
work.
For process mapping to work, decisions are pushed to the “process” level and employees are given the tools
and training they need to excel. An example (Figure 1) of non-enterprise thinking is presented at the beginning of
training to encourage participants to begin thinking, “out-of-the-box”. The story is about five blind men and an
elephant. One man grabbed and ear, another the trunk, a third the tail, the fourth a leg, and the last touched the side.
Figure 1. Five Blind Men and an Elephant
The blind man holding the trunk thought he was holding a snake. The blind man holding the leg thought it was a
tree. The blind man holding the ear thought it was a fan. The blind man touching the side thought it was a wall.
The blind man holding the tail thought it was a rope. The moral of the story is each blind man’s perception is based
completely on his individual perception rather than on the reality of the situation.
This lesson is critically important when training people about enterprise optimization. Each employee
5
works in their own “box”, that is, they work within a functional area of the organization. Unless they see and
understand that their work is part of the much larger enterprise, process sub-optimization will occur. To really
improve the business, everyone involved in the process has to understand the whole system. Process mapping is a
powerful technique that provides an understandable picture of the entire process and a common language to get and
keep everyone on the same page.
At Honeywell, process mapping consists of eight steps — select process, identify boundaries, form teams,
develop “AS IS” map, identify cycle times, identify opportunities for improvement, develop “SHOULD BE” map,
and develop the implementation plan (receive confirmation before implementation). The job of the facilitator is to
encourage creative ideas from teams and guide the effort.
The first step is to select the process. The team lists the products it is responsible for and comes to a
consensus. The customers for each product are then identified. Customer satisfaction depends on giving the
customers what they expect, so they must be interviewed. Hence, teams are intensively trained in interviewing, data
collection, and data analysis techniques.
The second step is to identify the boundary. The boundary spans from when the raw product is taken
from the supplier (input) to when the finished product is handed to the customer (output). Defining the boundary is
simple, but it is important to document them for each product.
The third step is to make sure that the team has cross-functional representation from each organization
contributing to the process. Inclusion in the team should be based on who is involved in creating the product
between the input and output boundaries.
The fourth step is to develop the “AS IS” map. The “AS IS” map represents the transformation of inputs
into finished products. The map includes both information and product flow through the system. Starting at the
input boundary, important questions to resolve are: What is done with the input and who does it? What happens
next and who does it? At decision points, a branch is created that shows alternative routes for each decision
alternative. Three potential problems can occur when process mapping — optimizing part of the process while sub-
optimizing the process as a whole, making the map so far removed (too broad) from the actual process that is not
useful as a tool for change, and making the map too specific without involving those who must live with the
changes.
6
The fifth step is to identify the cycle time for each step in the process. Cycle time is determined by
measuring both the distance the product travels through its process and the time required performing the steps in the
process. Time is measured by average and range. Average cycle time is the mean rather than the midpoint between
the minimum and maximum time. Range is the difference between the minimum and maximum time.
The sixth step is to identify opportunities for improvement that would not add resources (extra costs).
Typical opportunities include waiting and storage steps, non-value-added steps, decision points for approval, steps
with a wide range of cycle times, sequential operations that could be done in parallel, and information that doesn’t
flow to those who do the work. Waiting, storage, and non-value-added steps are just waste. If the process is
streamlined, these shouldn’t be necessary. If a step has many decision points, it can be improved by removing most
of them. If a step has a wide range of cycle times, this indicates that it is probably inefficient. If a step can be done
in parallel with others, cycle time is greatly reduced at no extra cost. Finally, information flow is just as important
as product flow. If information is not flowing to those that do the work and make decisions, the process is
inefficient.
The seventh step is to develop the “SHOULD BE” map. This map includes a “picture” of the improved
processes and projections of their new cycle times. The “SHOULD BE” map depicts what the process will look like
after improvements are made. It provides a graphical picture of what the process team needs to work toward. It
should only include improvements that don’t require significant new resources. “A major limitation is that process
mapping takes a long time. The market wants cycle time reduction to happen very quickly. However, we need it
because it provides a road map for our business” (L. Holloway, Director of Strategic Planning and Organizational
Development, personal communication, September 21, 1999).
The eighth step is to develop the process implementation plan, establish confirmation, and implement. The
team prioritizes opportunities for improvement based on the impact on cycle time and quality. The team also
considers the impact of possible changes on other processes and customers. The team specifies specific changes,
responsible parties, and timetables. Cycle time goals are set for each of the process steps. Finally, the team consults
with the steering committee for input and confirmation before implementation can begin.
2. Fail-Safing
Fail-safing is a method to identify a defect, analyze it to understand its root cause, and then develop a
7
solution that will prevent that defect from occurring again. Fail-safing guarantees that a process will be defect-free.
While process mapping diagrams the entire flow of a business process, fail-safing is done to diagnose a defect
within the process. The PDCA (plan, do, check, act) cycle offers a road map to help teams work together to prevent
errors from occurring 100% of the time. PDCA offers a sound method for collecting “good” data, but technology is
needed for proper delivery. Honeywell invests heavily in state-of-the-art technology to help guarantee data delivery.
Figure 2. PDCA Cycle with Fail-Safing Steps
Fail-safe planning (Plan) has five steps (see Figure 2). The first step is to identify the problem (defect).
Defect detection involves analyzing data using a pareto chart. The pareto chart principle proposes that 20% of
causes create 80% of the problems we experience. Once the data is analyzed, a defect description is logged that
describes the defect and its impact on other processes. Similar to process mapping, a map of the existing process is
made with the defect. The map should include documentation concerning the people involved (team) in the
operation as well as where the defect is discovered.
The second step is to identify the root cause(s) of the problem. The team identifies places in the process
map where red flag conditions exist. The “Five Why’s” technique is used to identify root causes. First, the team
asks — why does this cause of error occur? For each reason, they ask again why the error occurs. After asking
“why” five times, the team is able to converge on the root cause of the error. To test the validity of a root cause, a
8
1. Identify Problem
2. Identify Causes
3. Generate Solutions
4. Evaluate and Choose
5. Create Plan
6. Implement Solution7. Check Results
8. Act on Results
Act
Check Do
Plan
simple test can be used. A root cause has three characteristics — 1) it is a cause of the defect identified, 2) it is
possible to change the cause, and 3) if eliminated, the defect will be eliminated or at least reduced. If the cause
satisfies all three characteristics, it is a root cause.
The third step is to generate alternative solutions. The team starts by selecting one root cause. A recorder
and timekeeper are then selected to mediate. Brainstorming can then begin. Keep in mind that this process may
seem simple, but trained facilitators are needed to ensure that everyone is involved and an open forum for ideas is
maintained.
The fourth step is to evaluate and choose a solution. Each alternative is considered against criteria such as
time, ease, and cost to implement. Ideas that take too long to implement are eliminated. Evaluation helps the team
choose the best device(s) to fail-safe the error condition.
Finally, an implementation plan is created. Everyone affected by the change is identified. The team
considers customers, suppliers, and support people on the team. The team then determines how the device will be
measured and completes an action register. The purpose of the register is to create a “visible” listing of all the
actions required to implement the device, the people involved, the completion dates, and the status of each action.
Step six (Do) is to implement the chosen solution. The team now completes each action item involved in
installing the fail-safe device. Everything needs to be recorded so that the team has a visual memory of the steps
involved. Evaluation is also facilitated because data can be analyzed before and after the fail-safe device is
implemented.
Step seven (Check) involves checking results. Data is analyzed using the action register, pareto charts, and
histograms. The team also asks themselves if they got the results that they expected. If not, rework of the device is
undertaken.
Step eight (Act) is to determine the next steps for continuous improvement. The team asks itself what can
be improved and then begins the cycle again. Fail-safing is a continuous process. Fail-safing is only effective if it
works 100% of the time.
3. Teamwork.
Teamwork doesn’t occur naturally. It is difficult and complex. It takes special effort, management
support, training, and a nurturing environment to make it work. Special training is needed to familiarize people
9
(including managers) with what teams are, how they work, and how they will help the company. After training,
workers need to “feel” that the work environment is conducive to teams.
The manufacturing vision creates the first step toward a new work environment that fosters teamwork. It
proposes that the workforce take ownership for the success of the overall business. As such, all people need to
understand their roles and team together to achieve success. Creativity, risk-taking, and innovation are encouraged
and viewed as learning experiences. People are trusted, respected and empowered to execute their duties. Cross-
training is endorsed, work is challenging and enjoyable, and everyone is involved in leadership and doing the “right
things”.
Process mapping and fail-safing are laid out very specifically because their very nature is systematic and
controllable. However, training is “softer” because people are at its center. People are the biggest challenge in
dealing with change because they are not predictable, naturally resist change, and are diverse. Process mapping and
fail-safing are proven techniques that can help people solve problems. They are also set up to be very conducive to
teaming. Therefore, Honeywell focuses on these techniques to help people focus on real problems and become
familiar with teamwork gradually. People can be trained to effectively map processes and fail-safe defects in a short
time. However, getting a diverse workforce to work as a team takes time. The key is the environment. Hence,
Honeywell rewards teamwork, expects team ownership and responsibility, empowers teams to solve problems, and
provides training dollars to make teaming a natural part of the work life.
4. Effective Communication Skills.
Communication of the TotalPlantTM vision is paramount to success. “The number one problem in most
organizations is lack of effective communication. Faulty interactions between people often lead to conflicts, hurt
feelings, and damaged relationships” (G. J. Kristof, Manager Worldwide Manufacturing Programs, personal
communication, August 16, 1997). Communication of a vision is especially susceptible to conflict because its
message is broad and its audience is the enterprise.
Honeywell provides conflict resolution training to teams to help them deal with conflict in a positive way.
Basic interpersonal communication skills for enriching relationships with people and effective means for solving
problems are also part of the training.
One training module concentrates on listening skills. If people are not willing or able to listen to other
10
people around them, conflict and misunderstanding is very likely to arise. The module offers team-based exercises
to “role-play” conflict and resolution. Another module focuses on confronting skills. Many times it is difficult (but
necessary) to confront people in a positive way about unacceptable behavior. The goal is to be able to offer an
objective, non-blameful description of the problem.
One of the major difficulties of dealing with conflict and unacceptable behavior is to keep it from becoming
a personal attack on a person’s character. The conflict and/or the behavior are the problem, not the person! People
tend to become defensive when their behavior is questioned. This is a natural reaction. The key is to develop
conflict resolution skills that recognize this tendency and practice these skills in a non-threatening environment until
a certain level of mastery is reached.
Just like teaming, effective communication depends heavily on the work environment. An unlimited
training budget would still be wasted if trainees return to a work environment of “command and control”.
Therefore, Honeywell communicates the TotalPlantTM paradigm needs to everyone and fosters an environment that
rewards teamwork, creativity, and value-added thinking.
Management is responsible for team facilitation. Management’s job is to nurture and coach the team.
Another important role is to help the team set “stretch” goals. Stretch goals are lofty objectives that are beyond what
people are normally expected to reach. “Pushing people to achieve beyond their normal expectations causes them to
realize that they must change the way they do things. It also creates a healthy level of dissatisfaction. If people are
satisfied, they will never try to get better” (E. J. Janik, Manager Distribution Systems, personal communication,
September 12, 1999).
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Honeywell depends on information technology (IT) automation to keep its plant in operation. It produces
automation and control devices that must meet stringent levels of quality because its customers will accept nothing
less. Its devices are very sophisticated and require complicated processes to manufacture properly. The role of the
worker is that of monitoring the devices to make sure they are performing within strict tolerances. Therefore,
information is “built into” the systems that build other systems. Information that supports manufacturing is
viewable at each production cell through color monitors and other visual devices.
11
Information technology supports office processes that are integrated into the total system. Computer
technologists, engineers, and systems analysts keep systems running properly. Every IT system is aligned with
manufacturing. Otherwise it is not value-added. Managers tap into the system to obtain information about
productivity, cycle time, and performance. Many of the business managers have an engineering background that
helps them link the business systems with manufacturing.
Prior to 1989, the IS department was centralized and “separate” from manufacturing. “The systems were
technically elegant and centralized, but they didn’t meet the needs of the business. The IS department was
transformed into the IT department to better align with the business of making controls. IT was charged with
mapping business processes that supported the products and then transforming systems to match the maps” (E. J.
Janik, Manager Distribution Systems, personal communication, August 16, 1997). The IT department has made
great strides to align its services with the needs of the business.
EXECUTION
Honeywell has four mechanisms in place – process mapping, fail-safing, teamwork, and communication –
for promotion of an enterprise-wide integrated plant. Process mapping is a systematic BPR methodology to guide
team process improvement efforts along process paths. Fail-safing is a vehicle to help process teams identify and
correct defects quickly and permanently. Teaming is encouraged through communication of the vision and rewards
based on value-added activities. These four mechanisms facilitate successful change, but do nothing to guarantee it.
What separates success from failure is execution. Top management has to be willing to dedicate substantial
training resources to educate the workforce about the four mechanisms and how they work. Management behaviors
have to change from autocratic to facilitative. Teams have to be rewarded for enterprise value-added activities.
Finally, the organizational structure has to change to allow an environment conducive to innovation. Execution
flows from the corporate vision statement and strategic plan down to management and workers. The vision
statement has to reflect the desired outcomes. Moreover, the strategic plan has to incorporate specific steps, policies
and standards that will make real change happen. Top management has to live the new paradigm by being active
participants in the change process. Top management endorsement is not enough. They have to interact with teams
and management to let their people know that change is a priority and that they understand what is being done at the
12
process level to make change happen. Top management therefore has to facilitate the paradigm through resources,
executive actions, rewards, and recognition.
At Honeywell, the path toward change is probably much smoother than most organization because the
organization has embraced change for many years. Honeywell is a pioneer in quality management and has always
developed its people through training programs and rewards for value. Hence, execution is easier and resistance is
not as big of an issue. However, problems have occurred.
The biggest obstacle to execution was within the middle management ranks. Middle management was too
used to being experts in a specific area. For instance, one operations manager was the resident expert in materials
flow, but he managed technology, engineering, and manufacturing people. He would manage sub-optimally because
every problem was solved through materials flow. He could not see the cross-functional or cross-specialization
nature of the problem because of his narrow focus on materials flow. He had to “let go” of his expertise and let his
people solve the problem as a cross-functional team. It may sound like a simple change for this manager, but it took
years.
Behavioral change is the most difficult type of change. It takes time and patience. Execution of a major
change program thereby requires a lot of time to reap desired benefits. With quick profits and impatience the norm
in many organizations, execution will be the biggest hurdle to success. Adoption of mechanisms, like those used at
Honeywell, are therefore worthless without a plan for change and proper execution of that plan.
LESSONS LEARNED
From the case study, we developed a set of general lessons. The case experience allowed us to speak in-
depth with people involved in enterprise transformation that should make the lessons more practical.
Lesson One: People are the key enablers of change.
Business processes are complex, but process mapping offers a comprehensive blueprint of the existing state. The
blueprint enables systematic identification of opportunities for improvement. IT is complex, but vendors,
consultants, and system designers can create models of the system. In contrast, people are unpredictable. They
cannot be modeled or categorized universally. However, people do the work and therefore must be trained,
facilitated, and nurtured.
Lesson Two: Question everything.
Allowing people to question the way things are done is imperative to change. Fail-safing provides a systematic
approach to effectively question the status quo. People are encouraged to question the existing state.
13
Lesson Three: People need a systematic methodology to map processes.
Process mapping is the mechanism used to map and understand complex business processes. The systematic nature
of the process mapping methodology keeps people focused and acts as a rallying point. Moreover, process mapping
provides a common language for everyone involved in the project.
Lesson Four: Create team ownership and a culture of dissatisfaction.
Once a team perceives that they “own” a project, they tend to want to make it work. It becomes “their” project. In
addition, management should encourage people to be dissatisfied with the way things are currently done. However,
punishing people for complaining about ineffective work processes is an effective way to promote the status quo.
Lesson Five: Management attitude and behavior can squash projects.
If the managerial attitude remains that of “command and control” and/or their behavior doesn’t change,
transformation will most likely fail. Success depends on facilitative management and visible and continuous support
from the top. When Honeywell got its new president in 1996, the attitude toward criticism changed dramatically.
The new president wasn’t as accepting of casual criticism. Criticism of the status quo had to be based on well-
thought-out ideas and presented with the logic behind their thinking. This drastically reduced the complaints about
existing processes without justification.
Lesson Six: Bottom-up or empowered implementation
While support from the top is critical, actual implementation should be carried out from the bottom-up. The idea of
empowerment is to push decisions down to where the work is actually done. Process mapping and fail-safing
are two systematic and proven methodologies that help support empowered teams.
Lesson Seven: BPR must be business-driven and continuous
Process improvements should be aligned with business objectives. Process mapping, fail-safing, and teaming should
be based on what the business needs to change to become more successful. In this case, effective communication of
ideas from top management throughout the enterprise is imperative. In addition, organizations should be wary of the
“I’ve arrived” syndrome. Change is continuous and is never over.
Lesson Eight: IT is a necessary, but not a sufficient enabler.
IT is not a panacea. IT enables BPR by automating redesigned processes. However, information is for people.
People work with people to produce products for other people. In addition, people need quick and easy access to
quality information to help them make good decisions. Therefore, IT needs to be designed to support the business
and the production of products to be effective.
Lesson Nine: Set stretch goals.
Goals should be set a little higher than what the team believes they can accomplish. Since teams have little
experience with the new paradigm, goal setting will tend to be based on the past. Project managers should
work with the team to help them develop stretch goals.
Lesson Ten: Execution is the real difference between success and failure.
The Honeywell case introduces four powerful mechanisms to facilitate enterprise change. However, real change
will not happen without a plan for change and aggressive execution of that plan. We believe this is where most
organizations fail. We believe that execution fails in many cases because organizations are not willing to dedicate
resources, time, and energy to the effort.
CAVEATS AND CONCLUSIONS
The major limitation of case study research is sample size that limits generalizability. A specific limitation
is that this case is industry-specific. Honeywell IAC is a manufacturing plant that produces special high quality
14
controls. IAC customers demand world-class quality that pushes the organization to continually improve. Different
industries and organizations within those industries have different environmental forces to deal with. Both of these
limitations reduce generalizability. However, transformation is a new area. It is very dynamic and the scope is
enterprise-wide. According to Yin (1994), case studies are appropriate in new and dynamic areas of research
therefore the case study approach appears to be viable in this instance.
Although case studies rate low on generalizability, they rate very high on data richness. By researching the
Honeywell transformation paradigm, we were able to uncover some very important insights regarding successful
change. Most importantly, we discovered that execution separates Honeywell from other organizations involved in
transformation. We were also able to identify nine other important change lessons. We concluded that the only way
this information can be collected is through the case study methodology.
Another major issue is dealing with change. Change is painful and difficult to implement. “Change of
even the simplest sort is hopelessly complex ... even making the case for change is close to impossible” (Peters,
1992, p. 628). However, change is a fundamental aspect of BPR. Organizations should therefore openly deal with
change. Top management needs to communicate to its people why the change is necessary and how it will impact
everyone’s current job and future with the company. Top management needs to convey to its people that BPR is not
being used to replace workers, but to improve quality, reduce cycle time, and create value for customers. Patience is
also needed. Change takes time.
REFERENCES
Davenport, T. H. (1993). Process Innovation: Reengineering Work Through Information Technology. Harvard
Business Press: Boston, Massachusetts.
Davenport, T. H. & Short, J. E. (1990). The New Industrial Engineering: Information Technology and Business
Process Redesign. Sloan Management Review, Summer, 11-27.
Davenport, T. H. and Stoddard, D. B. (1994). Reengineering Business Change of Mythic Proportions?
MIS Quarterly, June, 121-127.
Fuglseth, A. M. & Gronhaug, K. (1997). IT-enabled Redesign of Complex and Dynamic Business Processes: The
Case of Bank Credit Evaluation. Omega, International Journal of Management Sciences. 25, 1, 93-106.
Hammer, M. (1990). Reengineering Work: Don't Automate, Obliterate. Harvard Business Review, July-August,
18-25.
15
Hammer, M. & Champy, J. (1993). Reengineering the Corporation. Harper Collins Books: New York, NY.
Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail. Harvard Business Review. March-April,
59-67.
Paper, D. & Dickinson, S. (1997). Cases on Information Technology Management in Modern Organizations. In
Khosrowpour, M. & Liebowitz, J. (Eds.), A Comprehensive Process Improvement Methodology:
Experiences at Caterpillar’s Mossville Engine Center, (Chapter 9). Idea Group Publishing: Hershey, PA.
Peters, T. (1992). Liberation Management. Fawcett Columbine: New York.
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 2nd Edition, Sage Publications.
16
... The notion of Kotter's second step in the model in terms of having enough key people onboard in order for the rest not to have the power to interrupt the change process might provoke an autocratic leadership, which is possible consequence that was addressed by (Kotter, 1996), which he never advocated. In support of that, (Paper et al., 2001) asserted that if the leaders command and control attitude remain throughout the process of change implementation, the likelihoods of the project failing are higher than normal. In addition to that, (Kotter, 1996) believed that a change leading team with good managers but poor leaders, will most likely fail, as the author continued on stating that good managers have the ability to keep the change process intact and under control, whilst good leaders have the ability to create and develop the vision to direct the change. ...
... This fact is further supported by (Cole et al., 2006) when they concluded in their study that change implementation and execution is far more signi cant than having a SMART vision. Additionally, (Paper et al., 2001) also concluded that while people generally require a methodical approach to plan processes, implementation is the differentiating factor as to whether the change rises or collapses. ...
... study on the impact of communication and training on people's empowerment, when the authors concluded that businesses instigate empowerment in their employees by combining training, coaching and communication as the mechanism through which that can be implemented. Literatures on change management have always been supportive of people's empowerment.(Paper et al, 2001) studied the organisational change in Honeywell, and concluded that the key for a successful, effective, and e cient change transformation, is to simply have empowered employees. Likewise,(Lines, 2007) study results on a telecommunication organisation showed signi cant correlation between clear communication that leads to encouragement, ...
Preprint
Full-text available
Artificial intelligence in healthcare has a significant potential to deliver more efficient and effective medical services, as opposed to the current conventional practices. Although the transitioning into an artificial intelligence-based healthcare is considerably challenging, numerous cases around the world proven efficient and effective. The objective of this paper is to investigate why Kotter’s change management model is the favourable model for said change. In order to achieve that objective, a qualitative set of data has been collected and analysed. Kotter’s model has been validated based on a comparative review as well as models analysis counting in the most commonly used change management models. The paper concludes the necessity for a change management model, considering the magnitude and novelty of the change, which consequently indicates that in order to improve the delivery of medical services, by reducing cost, increasing accuracy and precision, an artificial intelligence initiative must be put in place, aided by change management. The paper also offers a framework to aid with mitigating and overcoming failures and setbacks when implementing the model.
... The retrospective literature on change management has revealed many factors as causes for its failure. A systematic meta-analytic review by Mosadeghrad and Ansarian (2014) reveals unrealistic expectations (Huq, 2006;Jun et al., 2004), deficient leadership (Cummings and Worley, 2005;Mourier and Smith, 2001), poor management (Hrebiniak, 2006), Lack of top management support (Hansson and Klefsjo, 2003;Paper et al., 2001;Talib et al., 2011), Lack of middle and front-line managers' commitment and involvement (Harrington and Williams, 2004;Jacobsen, 2008;Venkatraman, 2007), Management turnover (Mosadeghrad, 2005), Inappropriate planning (Mourier and Smith, 2001;Talib et al., 2011), Lack of vision and clear direction (Longenecker et al., 1999), Lack of constancy of purpose (Longenecker et al., 1999), Conflicting goals (Longenecker et al., 1999),Drive for short-term results (Beer, 2003;Dale et al. 1997), Experience of previous failed change initiatives (Roberto and Levesque, 2005;Schneider et al., 1996), Lack of employee involvement and commitment (Hellriegel et al., 2001;Jones and Seraphim, Salaheldin, 2003;Soumyaja et al., 2011), Lack of good human resource management (Soltani et al., 2005;Walston et al., 2000), Lack of education and training (Huq and Martin, 2000), Lack of employees' motivation and satisfaction (Cater and Pucko, 2010;Mosadeghrad, 2005;Storseth, 2004;Pun and Jaggernath-Furlonge, 2012), Employee shortage (Newall and Dale, 1990), Employee turnover (Morrell et al., 2004), Lack of employee empowerment (Al- Khalifa and Aspinwall, 2000;Salegna and Fazel, 2000), Employee resistance to change (Bhat and Rajashekhar, 2009;Oakland and Tanner, 2007;Pheng and Teo, 2004;Landaeta et al., 2008), Inappropriate organisational culture (Alas and Vadi, 2006), Lack of teamwork (Longenecker et al., 1999), Lack of employee trust in senior management (Appelbaum et al., 1999), Problemsolving mindset (Cummings, 1995), Poor and in-effective communication (Paper et al., 2001;Sebastianelli and Tamimi, 2003), Inappropriate organisational structure (Bayazit, 2003;Douglas and Judge, 2001;Pun and Jaggernath-Furlonge, 2012), Lack of resources (Mourier and Smith, 2001;Sebastianelli and Tamimi, 2003), Incompetent change agents (Andrews et al., 2008;Balogun, 2003), Ineffective or inappropriate model of change (Okumus, 2003), Lack of proper process management (Hellsten and Klefsjo, 2000), Lack of an customer focus (Jun et al., 2004;McGreevy, 2009) as the reasons for organisational change programmes fail as. Since most of these causes are 'human' dimensions, it is needed to study this aspect in a more detailed and interactive manner. ...
... The retrospective literature on change management has revealed many factors as causes for its failure. A systematic meta-analytic review by Mosadeghrad and Ansarian (2014) reveals unrealistic expectations (Huq, 2006;Jun et al., 2004), deficient leadership (Cummings and Worley, 2005;Mourier and Smith, 2001), poor management (Hrebiniak, 2006), Lack of top management support (Hansson and Klefsjo, 2003;Paper et al., 2001;Talib et al., 2011), Lack of middle and front-line managers' commitment and involvement (Harrington and Williams, 2004;Jacobsen, 2008;Venkatraman, 2007), Management turnover (Mosadeghrad, 2005), Inappropriate planning (Mourier and Smith, 2001;Talib et al., 2011), Lack of vision and clear direction (Longenecker et al., 1999), Lack of constancy of purpose (Longenecker et al., 1999), Conflicting goals (Longenecker et al., 1999),Drive for short-term results (Beer, 2003;Dale et al. 1997), Experience of previous failed change initiatives (Roberto and Levesque, 2005;Schneider et al., 1996), Lack of employee involvement and commitment (Hellriegel et al., 2001;Jones and Seraphim, Salaheldin, 2003;Soumyaja et al., 2011), Lack of good human resource management (Soltani et al., 2005;Walston et al., 2000), Lack of education and training (Huq and Martin, 2000), Lack of employees' motivation and satisfaction (Cater and Pucko, 2010;Mosadeghrad, 2005;Storseth, 2004;Pun and Jaggernath-Furlonge, 2012), Employee shortage (Newall and Dale, 1990), Employee turnover (Morrell et al., 2004), Lack of employee empowerment (Al- Khalifa and Aspinwall, 2000;Salegna and Fazel, 2000), Employee resistance to change (Bhat and Rajashekhar, 2009;Oakland and Tanner, 2007;Pheng and Teo, 2004;Landaeta et al., 2008), Inappropriate organisational culture (Alas and Vadi, 2006), Lack of teamwork (Longenecker et al., 1999), Lack of employee trust in senior management (Appelbaum et al., 1999), Problemsolving mindset (Cummings, 1995), Poor and in-effective communication (Paper et al., 2001;Sebastianelli and Tamimi, 2003), Inappropriate organisational structure (Bayazit, 2003;Douglas and Judge, 2001;Pun and Jaggernath-Furlonge, 2012), Lack of resources (Mourier and Smith, 2001;Sebastianelli and Tamimi, 2003), Incompetent change agents (Andrews et al., 2008;Balogun, 2003), Ineffective or inappropriate model of change (Okumus, 2003), Lack of proper process management (Hellsten and Klefsjo, 2000), Lack of an customer focus (Jun et al., 2004;McGreevy, 2009) as the reasons for organisational change programmes fail as. Since most of these causes are 'human' dimensions, it is needed to study this aspect in a more detailed and interactive manner. ...
Article
Full-text available
Objectives: This study aims to bridge the gap in literature by integrating two key models of organizational change. This integration seeks to provide a more comprehensive conceptual framework that addresses both theoretical and practical concerns related to organizational development. Theoretical Framework: Berger and Luckmann (1966) explain organizational change as the transformation of an individual’s subjective reality into an organization’s objective reality. Feldman (1981) further conceptualizes this process through a three-phase model, which includes anticipatory, encounter, and change & acquisition stages. Method: This conceptual approach identifies how the stages of socialization contribute to employees’ development of objective organizational reality and considers the influence of informal groups within the organization. Results and Discussion: The integration of these models provides a broader understanding of organizational socialization. First, it emphasizes how the extended conceptual model can enhance comprehension of organizational socialization. Second, it underscores the role of informal groups in influencing employees’ socialization process, pointing to the potential for employees to deviate from the organizational objective reality. Research Implications: This integrated model provides a basis for future empirical studies on the importance of organizational socialization stages and informal group influence on employee outcomes. It also offers practical insights for organizations seeking to optimize their socialization processes to align employees with organizational goals. Originality/Value: By synthesizing distinct models, this research contributes to a deeper understanding of how individual experiences can be integrated into cohesive organizational values which could entail sustained economic growth and fair employment, aligned with SDG 8.
... This analysis resulted in excluding the studies [12] and [18] for proposing artefacts that are not based on a concrete methodology. It is important to mention that since each of the forty-four studies was meticulously reviewed, the authors also excluded six more methodologies from the initial set of fortyfour studies (i.e., the studies in papers [14,20,23,30,34,43]), since they proved irrelevant to the purposes of the RQ (Practical Screening criterion IC-C1). ...
... Reference Type of Evaluation AS MD 1 [22] Evaluation of organizational knowledge. AS MD 2 [23] Evaluation of model characteristics. AS MD 3 [24] Evaluation of enlightened performance measures. ...
Article
Full-text available
The continuous and systematic redesign of key business processes is very important for businesses and organizations that seek to achieve cost savings and efficiency enhancements. Selecting the most impactful processes and ensuring a successful redesign initiative remains an important topic that motivated the authors to conduct a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) on Business Process Redesign (BPR) Evaluation methodologies by applying an established eight-step SLR guide. The review sheds light on the current state of research and highlights the research gap by considering two dimensions of BPR artifacts: (a) the type of evaluation and (b) the generalizability of the existing approaches. The findings indicate that there is a lack of systematic methodologies in literature that properly evaluate the redesign capacity of models prior to implementation. Additionally, the existing methodologies do not cumulatively evaluate the quality characteristics that are necessary for BPR implementation or the applicability of BPR heuristics, and do not bear the generalizability to be readily used in a more general context. This paper aims to provide researchers with the necessary context and motivation to bridge this gap and further systematize BPR methodologies that can preselect the most suitable business processes for redesign.
... Likewise, Armistead and Meakins (2007) report that in times of change, process-and knowledge-related issues primarily involve individuals and the manner in which knowledge is created and shared. Thus, organizations should communicate any change to the parties involved, emphasizing why it is necessary and the impact it will cause to their current and future work (Paper et al., 2001). ...
... However, despite recognizing the importance of upper management participation in the change processes, Paper et al. (2001) emphasize that this in itself is not enough. Those in charge of change should interact with the teams and managers so that everyone is aware that change is a priority and understand that the phases of the process occur efficiently. ...
Article
Purpose The aim of this article is to investigate individuals' attitudes about organizational change, considering implementation of business process management (BPM) and resistance to change. Design/methodology/approach The study examines the attitudes of subjects that experienced organizational change in the context of BPM in Brazil. In order to measure resistance to organizational change, 22 interviews were conducted using a script adapted from Pereira et al. (2019). The study considered two main agents: BPM implementers and end-users. Data were analyzed qualitatively via content analysis. Findings The results provided interesting insights. In relation to the individuals' attitudes, satisfaction, fear, stress and anxiety were the most frequently reported. However, opinions contradict the negative feelings expressed, given that organizational benefits, facility and pleasure at work and personal benefits were the most frequently reported. In regard to behavior, individuals approved change and in general accepted it. Finally, in terms of confidence in management, the subjects reported leadership and trusting their bosses as positive points. Research limitations/implications Study limitations include the difficulty in finding end-users on LinkedIn, the fact that convenience sampling was used and the possible false memory of respondents. Originality/value The approach used in this study provided a relevant contribution to the area under study, primarily via the new findings, that is, elements of resistance to change that emerged from the data.
... In a change process, management can consider creating moments and spaces for exchanging ideas among peers. In their research, Paper and Paper (2001) argue that successful change require people empowerment and ownership. ...
Article
In order to adapt to an increasingly competitive world, organizations need to continuously change, yet the success of the change is conditioned by its institutionalization. The institutionalization of change is the key factor to perpetuate sustainable changes. Based on the exploration of the role of transformational leadership in times of (institutionalization of) change, the objective of this study is to analyze the contribution of the components of transformational leadership on the institutionalization of change within a Lebanese private university Redundancy, engaged in an accreditation process. Through a qualitative method on a single case study, based on semi-structured interviews conducted with 15 senior executives occupying key positions in the studied university and through 15 focus groups with 85 faculty members from four disciplinary fields, we explored the role of each of the four dimensions of transformational leadership in times of institutionalization of change. Our findings highlight the essential role of intellectual stimulation and inspirational motivation of transformational leadership, while the two other dimensions, idealized influence and individualized consideration, play a limited role in the university context of institutionalization of change. Moreover, individual recognition and idealized influence are essential to convince all members of the need for change and involve them in the accreditation process. This study allows us to understand the role of each of the transformational leadership dimensions in order to promote and escort institutionalization of change within high education sector. Received: 16 June 2021Accepted: 20 June 2023
... AS MD 1 (Hlupic et al., 2000) Assessment of organizational knowledge. AS MD 2 (Rodger and Pendharkar, 2001) Assessment of model characteristics. AS MD 3 (Brown et al., 2001) Assessment of enlightened performance measures. ...
Thesis
Full-text available
In response to increasingly competing environments, organisations are examining how their core business processes (BPs) may be redesigned to improve performance and responsiveness. However, there is a lack of approaches for evaluating BPR at design time and systematically applying BPR in the case of eligible models. The aim of this research is to: (a) evaluate the redesign capacity of BP models prior to implementation, (b) create a systematic and versatile BPR methodology, (c) correlate the evaluation and BPR methodologies to a unified and comprehensive approach and (d) demonstrate the above for a particular BPR method. A literature survey on the theoretical foundation of BPR and two separate Systematic Literature Reviews (SLRs) on BPR Evaluation and Application methodologies provide an overview of the current state of research and highlight the gap in systematic, generic methodologies that combine the assessment of redesign capacity of models at design time, with the application of BPR. The lack of a concept in literature that quantitatively depicts BPR applicability, led to the introduction of Model Plasticity. The concept is inspired by Neuroplasticity and is based on the calculation of internal model measures for predicting the applicability of RESEQ and PAR heuristics. Through a series of experiments and the use of logistic regression and the state-of-the-art Bender method, the author extracts and validates internal measure thresholds for the aforementioned heuristics. Following, the BPR Assessment framework is introduced for the systematic evaluation of the BPR capacity of input models based on their plasticity and external quality. The framework was created by applying the established DSRP methodology and incorporates essential redesign components that pass through interconnected phases. Two discrete operation modes of the framework based on partitioning clustering and proximity measurement are also proposed and presented in this research by using a BP model repository from literature. The operation modes are demonstrated for data-centric workflow optimization to highlight the straightforward and convenient application of the framework. A set of sixty-four real-life BP scenarios from the Greek Public Financial Management is modelled in the BPMN2.0 standard and measured for the validation of the framework. The validation demonstrates the multitude of benefits for the agencies of the Ministry of Finance and potentially to the whole Greek public sector, given the constant shift to digital transformation schemes. Finally, the author extended the framework with a new complementary artefact, the BPR Application framework, for the systematic application of BPR methods and combined them into a unified and comprehensive methodology. In this way, this research proposes a fully tested and validated methodology for the evaluation of the BPR capacity of models at design time, and a holistic methodology for systematically applying BPR to eligible cases.
Article
Purpose Quality management (QM) can support organisations in contributing to sustainable development. As a result of an expanding focus from customers towards stakeholders within QM, the perspectives to consider multiply. Understanding how practices and tools for process management are specifically affected by this increase in perspectives is key to creating the right conditions for improvement initiatives that support sustainable development. Design/methodology/approach This paper constructs a typology wherein the use of process management practices and tools is described in nine distinguished system contexts. Inductive discrimination is used to differentiate the system contexts and different use cases for process practices and tools. Findings Using the system of systems grid (SOSG), mainstream business process management (BPM) practices are positioned in a simple unitary context, whilst sustainability challenges also involve more complex contexts. Addressing these challenges requires integrating new tools and methods from paradigms outside of traditional functionalist business process management practices. Research limitations/implications This paper highlights the necessity to consider system contexts when developing feasible practices and tools for effective process management. Practical implications Practical implications are that quality practitioners aiming to exploit the potential in process management to support sustainability get support for planning and conducting process improvement initiatives aiming to consider several stakeholder perspectives. Originality/value This paper presents a new typology for understanding the context of QM process initiatives and BPM in light of a contemporary sustainability focus.
Article
Public organizations are striving to achieve excellence in their performance and gain a competitive edge through process improvement. To date, organizations have been able to achieve significant results through Business Process Re-engineering (BPR) implementation. However, and despite the reported success, many BPR projects in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) public sector fail to achieve their desired objectives. Many developing countries such as UAE have an open and growing economy where service in general, and governmental services in specific, play a major role in their growth and development. The objective of this study is to identify critical factors that contribute to the success of BPR in public organizations projects in the UAE. Semi-structured interviews were carried out with six subject matter experts (SMEs) in BPR to seek their feedback on BPR practices and challenges in the UAE. In addition, the study collected and analyzed the responses from 119 professionals in UAE's BPR public organizations. The findings indicate that the success rate of BPR projects falls within the range of 60–70%. Moreover, confirmatory model analysis suggests that process owners, performers, and IT infrastructure are the most influential factors especially for smaller size organizations. The findings will provide valuable insights for decision makers seeking to improve the success rate of BPR projects in the UAE, specifically, by investing more in the influential factors. Such investment and the proper implementation of recommendations will enable them to achieve their quality and productivity goals while minimizing cost.
Article
Full-text available
Experience shows many change initiatives fail to deliver. They do not always lead to total failure, but they get stalled, misdirected, or only partially achieve the required results. As the speed of change in the external environment increases by the minute the authors set out to identify the common success factors for managing change. The main purpose of the research was to examine the apparent gap between often seen approaches and ‘best practice’, the output being a helpful framework to support future initiatives. Senior management in 28 organisations from a variety of industries, including the public sector, were interviewed to gain their insights on how to manage change successfully. The research, which was conducted over a six-month period, examined a number of themes covering the triggers for change, planning for change, and implementing change. The forces for change, as experienced by the respondents, were also captured. A number of insights were identified through the research which showed that successful change focuses on both strategic and operational issues. The key links between the strategic objectives and operational improvement are through the core processes, which need to be understood, measured and improved. If the links are broken, then the change is largely ineffective. The research led to the definition of two main constructs of change management: readiness for change and implementing change. These have been shown diagrammatically in a framework which should be an aid to all organisations that are about to embark on a change programme, or are in the process of managing change and wish to improve their chances of success.
Article
Full-text available
Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to gather current (2011) arguments and counterarguments in support of the classic change management model proposed by John P. Kotter in his 1996 book Leading Change. His work was based on his personal business and research experience, and did not reference any outside sources that has questioned its value. A current perspective on a limited tested model aims to be a focus of this paper. Design/methodology/approach: The literature on change management was reviewed for each of the eight steps defined in Kotter's model, to review how much support each of these steps had, individually and collectively, in 15 years of literature. Findings: The review found support for most of the steps, although no formal studies were found covering the entire spectrum and structure of the model. Kotter's change management model appears to derive its popularity more from its direct and usable format than from any scientific consensus on the results. However the model has several limitations, that are identified, impacting upon its universal acceptance and popularity. Research limitations/implications: Further studies should examine the validity of Kotter's model as a whole. More importantly, change management research should form a greater link with stakeholders in order to translate current research into a format usable by practitioners. Practical implications: No evidence was found against Kotter's change management model and it remains a recommendable reference. This paper attempts to "test" the "how-to-do-change management" with empirical and practitioner literature that was not evident in the original text. The model would be most useful as an implementation planning tool, but complementary tools should also be used during the implementation process to adapt to contextual factors or obstacles. Originality/value: Based upon a thorough review, this is the first formal review of Kotter's change management model, 15 years after its introduction.
Article
Full-text available
Purpose The value stream mapping (VSM) is a tool created by the lean production movement for redesigning the productive systems. Since, it was theoretically developed, some cases have been published where the mentioned tool has been used; however, there is a need to see how it is put into practice, that is to analyze the level in which theory is able to adapt to real practice, the strengths, weaknesses and the key aspects to be taken into account by the applicant teams to obtain the highest performance of the VSM. This paper aims to discuss all of these aspects. Design/methodology/approach The methodology used is a case study of a company in which the process of application of the VSM has been thoroughly analyzed. A team created to improve the productive system of a manufacture for plastic casings for mobile phones has carried out this application. Findings The research shows that the VSM is a valuable tool for redesigning the productive systems according to the lean system. Nevertheless, there are some key points for the establishing teams that have to take into account, as follows: the time and training resources spent, the use of suitable information systems and a suitable management of the application phases. Research limitations/implications The conclusions of this research can be reinforced by the monitoring of the application process in more company cases. Practical implications The conclusions of this research are useful for future practitioners, so that they may bear in mind the different aspects of planning projects for redesigning productive systems by using VSM. On the other hand, these conclusions can also be useful for the academic field in order to enhance the theory of VSM. Originality/value The paper is a contribution based on practical references according to a thoroughly monitoring of a successful case in establishing VSM.
Article
Full-text available
Purpose Experience shows many change initiatives fail to deliver. They are not always a total failure, but they get stalled, misdirected, or only partially achieve the required results. The main purpose of the research reported in this paper was to examine the apparent gap between often‐seen approaches and “best practice”, the output being a helpful framework to support future initiatives. This led to an Organisational Change Framework being developed, based on the experience of many organisations. Design/methodology/approach In total, 28 organisations, from a variety of industries including the public sector, were interviewed to gain their insights on how to manage change successfully. The research, which was conducted over a six‐month period, examined a number of themes covering the triggers for change, planning for change, and implementing change. The forces for change, as experienced by the respondents, were also captured. Findings A number of insights were identified through the research. The research showed that successful change focuses on both strategic and operational issues. The key link between the strategic objectives and operational improvement is the core processes, which need to be understood, measured and improved. If the link is broken, then the change is ineffective. Originality/value The research led to the definition of two main constructs of change management: readiness for change and implementing change.
Article
Businesses hoping to survive over the long term will have to remake themselves into better competitors at least once along the way. These efforts have gone under many banners: total quality management, reengineering, rightsizing, restructuring, cultural change, and turnarounds, to name a few. In almost every case, the goal has been to cope with a new, more challenging market by changing the way business is conducted. A few of these endeavors have been very successful. A few have been utter failures. Most fall somewhere in between, with a distinct tilt toward the lower end of the scale. John P. Kotter is renowned for his work on leading organizational change. In 1995, when this article was first published, he had just completed a ten-year study of more than 100 companies that attempted such a transformation. Here he shares the results of his observations, outlining the eight largest errors that can doom these efforts and explaining the general lessons that encourage success. Unsuccessful transitions almost always founder during at least one of the following phases: generating a sense of urgency, establishing a powerful guiding coalition, developing a vision, communicating the vision clearly and often, removing obstacles, planning for and creating short-term wins, avoiding premature declarations of victory, and embedding changes in the corporate culture Realizing that change usually takes a long time, says Kotter, can improve the chances of success.
Article
In this article, we explore the organizational process change dynamic through a theoretical lens of business process reengineering (BPR) models. We review relevant literature related to such models to devise a synthesized model of BPR. The synthesized model facilitates the identification of success factors for BPR. Results from in-depth case-study research add explanatory power to our model. It is hoped that our model and subsequent success factors will offer insights to help organizations effectively manage change and transformation.