BPR
matter of changing how work is carried out or the structure of the organisation. Whilst BPR stresses the need for open discussions and feedback, management have to actually analyse and follow up on issues raised. A BPR project “needs a leader who can understand the BPR case of change, and its effect on the organisation” (Al-Mashari and Zairi, 2000). This reflects another issue, which leads to less than optimal results for BPR projects.
In order to have optimal results from BPR, the concepts need to be modified to suit the organisation, and this is significant for human relations in BPR.
Implementing business process reengineering can be complex when addressing the concept of human relations. Human relations management (HRM) is a major factor in BPR. Whilst it may be simple to absorb and understand, actually implementing the changes in human relation area can be difficult.
Every organisation has its own culture and structure, so what may work for one organisation may not necessarily work for another.
“BPR can represent danger to people when it introduces new job structure and definitions, and forces employees to change their work style” (Al-Mashari and Zairi, 2000). One main obstacle an organisation may encounter when introducing BPR is “resistance to change” (Malhorta, 1998). This not only occurs with lower level employees, but also managers. People generally do not like changes, thus any scheme that will dramatically affect the way they work may encounter resistance. However BPR texts suggest ways to help overcome resistance by telling organisations to provide adequate vision, communicating plans and expectations, training and open discussions for employees. These concepts can seem simple; however implementing them may be difficult. Employees need to be aware or all changes, and how BPR will affect them, otherwise workers become apprehensive and willing to involve themselves in the BPR movement. This may be encountered in team work or open discussions where employees are unwilling to actively participate.
Organisations need to go beyond telling employees BPR will promote improvements, they need to offer incentives, motivation and training to have employees involved and contributing to change. (Zucchi and Edwards, 1999). Making employees change the way they work “requires leadership with real vision” (Keating et al, 1999) and motivation.
Another concept from BPR is empowerment of employees. BPR often calls upon organisations to empower people, giving them authority to make their own decisions and trust their own judgement.
Al-Mashari (2000) encourages empowerment as it “promotes self-managed and collaborative team work principles.”
However the case study Zeta described in Davison and Martinsons (2002) paper, presents a different view of BPR and empowerment in a real life situation. The Zeta example showed how an organisation’s culture did not support a BPR movement. “None of the team members had been given similar authority or responsibility previously” (Davison and Martinsons, 2002). This example conveys how less optimal results have occurred from believing BPR is simple to absorb and rules not too complex. Empowering employees is not as simple as giving power, employees need guidance as to [next page]