I have a commitment I want to share.
As you may know Meridian has extensive experience helping clients improve business operations. Most recently operational improvements have been tied to ERP implementations.
But process work substantially pre-dates our ERP involvement. And my personal experience with process improvement dates to the days of Michael Hammer and the vaunted “re-engineering revolution.”
Whatever happened to the expected “re-engineering revolution?” Sure Michael Hammer put processes on our brains, but what happened to the “process re-engineering” movement—you know, the widely accepted belief that process re-design was the answer to many corporate ills and inefficiencies.
Wikipedia tells the tale, correctly crediting the 1990 Hammer/Champy HBR article, “Re-engineering Work: Don’t Automate, Obliterate” as the Business Process Re-engineering (BPR) movement’s kick-off.
But the party barely got started.
“The most frequent and harsh critique against BPR concerns the strict focus on efficiency and technology and the disregard for the people in the organizations who were subjected to re-engineering initiatives."
“Very often, the label BPR was used for major workforce reductions.”
I couldn’t agree more.
I don’t doubt that Michael Hammer and a cadre of BPR practitioners fundamentally changed the way we think about and talk about business. But the actual practice of BPR had too much collateral damage—efficiencies gained at the expense of jobs, morale, and commitment. Even Hammer himself agreed, later stating, "I wasn't smart enough about that (the people impacts of BPR). I was reflecting my engineering background and was insufficiently appreciative of the human dimension.”
Lost in the mists is the fact that the rationale for BPR remains valid—managers should obliterate work that does not add value to customers, not automate it.
For the past decade Meridian has worked to make people a better, more effective part of ERP implementations and use.
Our next big commitment is to cure the ills plaguing the solid concepts underpinning Business Process Re-engineering—to make people a better, more effective part of the BPR process.
More about how in my next posts.
As you may know Meridian has extensive experience helping clients improve business operations. Most recently operational improvements have been tied to ERP implementations.
But process work substantially pre-dates our ERP involvement. And my personal experience with process improvement dates to the days of Michael Hammer and the vaunted “re-engineering revolution.”
Whatever happened to the expected “re-engineering revolution?” Sure Michael Hammer put processes on our brains, but what happened to the “process re-engineering” movement—you know, the widely accepted belief that process re-design was the answer to many corporate ills and inefficiencies.
Wikipedia tells the tale, correctly crediting the 1990 Hammer/Champy HBR article, “Re-engineering Work: Don’t Automate, Obliterate” as the Business Process Re-engineering (BPR) movement’s kick-off.
But the party barely got started.
“The most frequent and harsh critique against BPR concerns the strict focus on efficiency and technology and the disregard for the people in the organizations who were subjected to re-engineering initiatives."
“Very often, the label BPR was used for major workforce reductions.”
I couldn’t agree more.
I don’t doubt that Michael Hammer and a cadre of BPR practitioners fundamentally changed the way we think about and talk about business. But the actual practice of BPR had too much collateral damage—efficiencies gained at the expense of jobs, morale, and commitment. Even Hammer himself agreed, later stating, "I wasn't smart enough about that (the people impacts of BPR). I was reflecting my engineering background and was insufficiently appreciative of the human dimension.”
Lost in the mists is the fact that the rationale for BPR remains valid—managers should obliterate work that does not add value to customers, not automate it.
For the past decade Meridian has worked to make people a better, more effective part of ERP implementations and use.
Our next big commitment is to cure the ills plaguing the solid concepts underpinning Business Process Re-engineering—to make people a better, more effective part of the BPR process.
More about how in my next posts.
