This book is made up  of TWO parts a Novel which explains the THEORY and a Practical Workbook to help you APPLY it.

Making Re-engineering Happen

What's wrong with the organisation anyway?

What's wrong with the organisation anyway?

Chapter One: Re-organising to Stay the Same.

Chapter Two: Am I really re-engineering my organisation?

Chapter Three: So, what is re-engineering?

Chapter Four: What has re-engineering got to do with organisations?

Chapter Five: Hurdle No 1: The Paradox of Re-engineering

Chapter Six: Hurdle No 2: Understanding process

Chapter Seven: Processes are not all the same

Chapter Eight: Hurdle No 3: Data data everywhere and but not information

Chapter Nine: Hurdle No 4: Recognising the new stakeholders

Chapter Ten: Doing it for real

"Four B, Four B, Four B." I intone rhythmically as I work my way along the rows. It's an aisle seat. I stop and hoist my cases into the overhead locker. Some pushing and squeezing and they're home. Then I have to pull my briefcase out again because I realise that I have forgotten to remove the outline for my presentation. I am planning to work on it during the flight.

I settle into my seat and start to flick through my papers. A few minutes later the passenger with the window seat comes up and asks to be let through. I look up the face seems familiar. Probably someone I've seen on TV. I stand up to let him through. He squeezes past and settles into the chair next to me. I am preparing to return to my seat. I pick up the papers I placed on the seat. As I do that I see his profile. The cabin lights seem to reflect off his shining bald patch. I definitely know that face. Is he a TV presenter? A politician? He seems to sense that I am looking at him because he looks up at me and smiles and without knowing whom I am addressing I smile back and say "Hello." And then I recognise him.

He replies trying hard not to show that he doesn't know who I am. I hear myself saying. "Excuse me. I think I know you." It sounds corny.

I remember it's Franck. Franck's a..., what was it he called himself? Not a consultant. I remember, a business educator. Someone who teaches businesses to solve their own problems rather than telling them the answers. "I'm sure you don't remember me, but we met in Trondheim in er, 1993 at the Global Change Management Conference." It's obvious from his expression that he still doesn't recognise me. I start to feel embarrassed, as if I am trying to strike up a false conversation. Usually if a fellow passenger tries to introduce themselves to me at the start of a transatlantic flight I do all I can to discourage them (I was once caught out by a life insurance salesman).

But Franck is generous. To prevent my embarrassment he pretends to recognise me. "Trondheim?" He repeats.

"Yes." I reply.

"'93?"

"You were giving a presentation on Change. Trying to explain that, provided people were prepared to observe what was around them it was all very simple to understand and to manage." I struggle to remember what he was talking about. For once my memory actually comes to my rescue. "Something about your 'Laws of Change'. You managed to transform a lifeless, boring conference into an arena throbbing and pulsating with discussion and debate. Delegates actually challenging and questioning each other's assumptions."

"He chortles as he remembers, His broad shoulders bouncing up and down. "Yes. Trondheim '93." Suddenly the recognition. "Of course" He says expansively, raising and spreading his arms. "You came up after the session and also we had dinner together with a couple of other delegates."

I'm relieved that he's finally recognised me and nod vigorously. He extends his hand. We shake hands warmly. "Good to see you again. Manufacturing, I think... Implementing flexibility?"

"For someone who didn't recognise me five minutes ago that's not bad." I think, but I say, "Multi-skilling."

"Multi-skilling eh? How did it go?"

I move across and take my seat. I reach for the belt ends and buckle them together. "Your stuff on Stakeholder management worked a treat." He doesn't seem surprised. I guess he's heard from lots of people that his stuff can be applied and works. But still, I'm a bit miffed at the lack of reaction.

He seems not to want to reminisce about a conference from two years ago and I almost see him mentally switching off our discussion but I decide to keep it going. "The workforce are behind it and although we have had some resistance from some of the supervisors the main headaches have not been people related."

"Good." He says with muted enthusiasm. He is starting to look straight ahead and I find myself talking to his profile.

I decide to impress him. "I'm now responsible for the re-engineering of our business. He looks blank. I guess that it's an area he isn't familiar with so I expand a little "You know, er, Business Process Re-engineering, Corporate Re-engineering, Corporate Re-invention, the organisational revolution of the 90's."

He still looks blank so I continue to explain. I use the phrase that I have heard over and over at the conference. Using the same tones of reverence I repeat, "It's about moving away from vertical, functional 'silos'. It's about moving to horizontal processes which run across the organisation."

I seem to finally have aroused his interest. He looks back at me. His eyes darken. Making me think that I've said something that has made him very, very, angry. And then calmly, with a soft and quiet voice which seems incompatible with his expression, he asks "Why?"

This throws me into instant confusion. I had thought he was going to ask me what re-engineering was or offer an opinion like "It's all a load of rubbish" but instead he asks me 'Why?' A shrill voice in my heads shrieks at me. I say, "Er, what do you mean?"

With the same level of calm intensity he repeats his question, "Why are you re-engineering your organisation?"

I've been on a seminar so I know the answer. "To meet increasing competition, to match the faster pace of change. These days you have to be flexible to stay in business. Re-engineering is the way to revolutionalise the way our organisation operates."

He frowns as if he doesn't understand and then he says, "I don't understand. Run that past me again. You say you've been put in charge of re-engineering your business?"

"That's right." I think to myself that he's being a bit slow on the uptake.

"You say it's about moving from functional 'silos' to horizontal processes which run across the organisation?"

I nod.

"But why has your organisation set up these functional 'silos' which need re-engineering? Was setting up these 'silos' the original engineering?"

"It's not like that. You see, they're not real silos. It's just an expression we use to describe the vertical hierarchy in each functional area. Each business function has a vertical hierarchy which doesn't overlap with other functions." As I speak he nods. He seems to be following me. "Over time the functions have developed very distinct no-go areas. The different functions seem to have different views of what they think they should be doing?"

Franck looks pensive. "Isn't that the reason that you have different functions in the first place, because they all do different things in the organisation?"

"I agree, but now," I say "they're not working together. They hardly communicate and often they fight over budgets and responsibilities to the detriment of the customer."

Franck's head bounces from side to side as if he is slowly grasping what I am saying. "Oh I see. So re-engineering is just a fancy expression for improving company communications."

"Not really." I'm struggling to explain myself more clearly. "Well, communications should improve but also there should be an improvement in the way that the business functions."

"Oh I see," he says again, "like the Japanese 'Kaizen' continuous improvement programmes. It's a western name for a borrowed concept."

I'm stumped. Franck is replaying my earlier thought that re-engineering is just a mishmash of different business fads, back to me.

I mumble something like, "It really is a radically new approach to running your business."

He looks at me with an expression which betrays the fact that he doesn't really believe me. "So what exactly are these processes? How come you didn't have them in the past? What do they look like? And how did you engineer them in the first place so that now they need re-eng...?"

"...Our cabin crew will now demonstrate the safety equipment aboard this 747 aircraft." A metallically nasal voice blares over the loud speaker system.

A stewardess looks disapprovingly at us for ignoring the safety instructions so Franck whispers. "Tell me all about it. Start from the beginning..."

"Emergency exits are located over the wings. In the unlikely event that you should need to use the exits please remove high heeled shoes and leave your hand baggage in the aircraft and..."

Chapter Three: So What is Re-engineering?

"So you've been working on this for four months with little success?"

I purse my lips slightly and raise my eyebrows resignedly as I nod quickly.

"And the way that you are absolutely sure that you know that re-engineering is the solution to your organisation's problems is because...." His voice tails off leaving me to complete the sentence.

We've just finished the part of any flight I love most, the take off. The way the pilot lines up the plane to point straight down the runway, the few vital seconds of pause when he gets clearance and then pedal to the metal as s/he floors the accelerator and does 0 to 60 in a couple of seconds. Who needs a Ferrari if you can get frequent flights?

"...We're not set up to deal with the problems of increasing competition, pace of change and flexibility." I add.

"So," he says, "if I saw two businesses and I was told that they were finding difficulty matching the pace of change and so on, would they both need re-engineering?"

I hesitate. "Probably."

"So re-engineering is the only solution to this set of problems?"

"No, not the only solution."

"So going back to my two hypothetical businesses, what would be the differences which would help me to pick out which one needed re-engineering and which one would be better served by a different solution?"

My brain is letting me down We've only just met again and already I'm demonstrating what a dolt I am. I decide to 'bullshit' my way out of it. My voice slows and I adopt a laconic and confident manner moving my arms slowly in expansive gestures. "Of course, like most things in life, it's not so simple. One would have to have a broader view of the business, it's environment, growth potential. And then there is the question of the calibre of management."

But he ignores me and ploughs on. "I mean, what exactly is the problem that re-engineering is trying to solve or is it a solution to any business problem involving

change competition and flexibility?" He seems so interested in the subject and so keen to, know the answer that I find myself abandoning my 'bullshit my way out of this' approach, opening up and admitting that I don't really know.

I explain that in addition to my own experiences I have just spent four days on a seminar. Franck asks me if I noticed any common threads of questions or issues on what others were trying to achieve by re-engineering. "Why do you think that the other delegates were there? What do they hope to achieve through re-engineering?"

I start to put into words my previously unspoken thoughts. It comes out in a rush. "I'm not really sure, but the delegates who seemed keenest on re-engineering were those who had severe pressure to reduce costs and they had done all the reorganisation, de-layering and headcount reduction but were now questioning how they did things and starting to see if re-engineering can help to streamline how their organisations do business. There was another group whose organisations were finding that they were very good at producing products or services but the customer was demanding different products, trying to change what they actually offered. This group had to learn new ways of producing outcomes so they had to find out how other companies do it or invent new processes for themselves And I think there was another group who had both problems."

"Not so fast. Let me see if I've got it. People came to the seminar on re-engineering because they want to appraise or redevelop how their organisations go about most of their business."

I nod. Its a simple but fair summary

"Does that cover everyone?"

"Mostly, but some were less concerned about costs and more concerned about money, I mean revenue, sales, profits. They were looking to see if they could change how their businesses operate and use that as a route to provide better service, higher quality products, a faster turn around and so on"

"Is that it?"

"No. There was another group, quite a large one too." Franck leans forward with interest hanging on my very words. "They had come along with a very specific purpose," I pause as Franck listens intently "To get away from the office for a week to experience New England in the Fall." Franck erupts with laughter.

As his laughter subsides he gets enough breath to say, "I don't see where 'processes' come in. What are these business processes?"

I must be cleverer than I think because I remember another line from the seminar. I even remember what the speaker looked like. He was a tall thin man with a bald head and severe half moon glasses. I think he was from a financial institution. I quote it. "'A process is a series of dependent tasks leading to an outcome. A business process is a series of tasks undertaken by a business in pursuit of it's goal'"

"What does that mean in ordinary English?" He asks. I frown. Franck can tell I don't know what to say. "I mean, if I heard you describing a process what would you be doing?"

"If I was describing a business process," I say, speaking slowly and thinking my way along like a man in a pitch black corridor, "I guess I would be describing step by step exactly how the business went about producing it's outcomes."

Step by step eh?

Yes. I reply

That sounds like a project to me. Why do you think that step by step is a process rather than a project?

I'm feeling confused. I stutter "I think a project is only done once."

Franck raises an eyebrow.

"I think a process is step-by-step. Only it happens over and over again, day in-day out." I check his expression. It hasn't changed so I add "Different people contribute different things to a process..." I can tell he is still sceptical and thinks that I don't really understand the distinction but he has lowered the corners of his mouth and I can tell that he is going to let it pass.

He does. "Let's go back to my two imaginary businesses," he says. "How would you be able to recognise if one of them needed re-engineering ?"

I answer slowly, trying to think through the words as I say them. "I guess that if a business finds that how it does things produces outcomes that the customer doesn't want, then there is a good case to reinvent how the business would go about producing new outcomes."

Franck's head sways from side to side in a 'maybe, keep going', fashion.

"Or" I say, "if the business finds that it provides what customers want but only through blood, sweat and tears and several fitful starts and wrong turnings and in a far more work consuming way than other businesses trying to do the same thing. Such a business may wish to reassess how it goes about producing its' outcomes."

I'm feeling pretty good. This is starting to make sense to me. I pause but Franck urges me to continue. I set off again not knowing where I'm heading. "And then there are," I say and pause, "businesses that are neither delivering the outcomes wanted nor are they doing the work in the most enlightened and effective ways."

"So re-engineering doesn't cover the selection of the actual products or services which should be produced and offered?"

I think for a second. "Excuse me, would you like a drink before your meal?" The steward who has been hovering for the past thirty seconds, spots a gap in the conversation and dives in.

The conversation is proving useful. I'd like to stay sober for the mean time. "Ginger ale." I reply "Two cans please."

He serves Franck which gives me time to think.

"Where were we?"

"You were asking me if re-engineering covers the selection of the actual products or services which should be produced and offered."

"Oh Yes."

"I don't think it does. That would be marketing or marketing and sales strategy or something. But I guess it would have to be closely linked to your re-engineering."

Franck nods in agreement. "I notice that so far you have not mentioned people. You've only been talking about doing things and how they are done. Does re-engineering cover the way people work?"

"It is important that people work as multi-functional teams," I intone, another line stolen from the seminar, "but I suspect that if you significantly change how an organisation goes about producing its goods or services you are going to dramatically change people's jobs, roles and relationships." I am finding that in answering Franck's questions I am clarifying my own thoughts.

"If you significantly change peoples jobs and roles are you sure that they will have the capability to work in your new re-engineered fashion? It may not be enough to put them into multi-functional teams."

"True. I think you may need to retrain and realign the people who work in your organisation."

"If you are going to significantly change how you do things and you intend to have people doing different roles my guess is that you will also want a different infrastructure, different equipment and systems."

"Er. Yes." I agree trying to work out what he's leading me towards.

"If you are going to go to all that trouble and expense don't you want to be sure that in replacing how you do things today with how you do things tomorrow there is a quantum leap in business performance?" I nod vigorously. "So now what would you say re-engineering is?"

"It's about changing anything which provides a block to improving today's business performance, even if it means going back to the drawing board."

Franck continues his questioning "Does this mean that you will have a business without barriers to performance?"

"No. But I think that tomorrow's new barriers will be at a much higher level of performance and that's good enough for me especially since the world keeps changing."

"And when do you re-engineer? Remember my two small businesses?"

"I think you re-engineer when how your organisation goes about delivering it's offering is the main barrier to the organisation reaching it's goals."

He carries on "Are you still sure that you want to re-engineer your business?"

I think back to alternatives. Reorganising again, de-layering again, and customer focus initiatives, none of which, for us, in the past, significantly affected how we do business. I remember the difficulty we are having in developing SRS and the difficulty I am having in getting additional resources to operations improvement. I think of the Bermuda triangles, the things that fall in the gaps between functions, the feeling that I have that I am losing control, the demands from our staff for direction. I think about our falling sales and slowly falling costs. I think about the possibility of a quantum leap in business performance and answer, "Yes. definitely."

"Well then," he says, "it sounds to me like common sense. It shouldn't take you too long to make your organisation become a re engineered one." With that he settles back into his chair.

I know that he's probably right about it being common sense but I don't agree that it will be easy to make happen. I've been trying to make it happen with little success so far.

If it hasn't happened yet it probably just means that you have a number of hurdles to overcome. Things you need to learn, do or understand. Things which are holding up your progress.

Hurdles? I suppose that is possible but I wonder what they are. I reach for the 'joystick' on the arm of the chair and swivel it. The chair does a pirouette and settles me backwards comfortably with my feet slightly raised.