Reengineering Corporation Street : an empirical study of business process

This study was focused on Business Reengineering (Hammer, 1990; Hammer & Champy, 1993); aka Business Process Reengineering (BPR). The main aim of the study was to test the authors' (2001) claims that BPR was 'alive and well, ' and that'in fact' it had been 'one of the success stories of business history, ' but in this case within the context of local government organisations (LGOs) within the UK public sector. Throughout the final decades of the 20th Century, and continuing to date, there has been a relentless pace of change within the public sector during which managers have been under constant pressure to improve performance within their organisations (McAdam & Mitchell, 1998; Zeppou and Sotirakou, 2003). This pressure was increased in 2004 with the publication of Sir Peter Gershon's 'Spending Review 2004: Efficiency Review - Releasing Resources for the Frontline: Independent Review of Public Sector Efficiency. ' By 2007/08 Gershon was looking for 'auditable and transparent efficiency gains of over £20 billion, ' and 'a gross reduction of over 84,000 posts' across the military, civil service and administration. Councils across the UK have responded to these demands in differing ways, but some chose to adopt 'reengineering' as part of their range of change management strategies. This study has focused on two such LGOs over that 4-year period. The study commenced by reviewing the literature surrounding reengineering - or BPR, as it has become more widely known - including as appropriate other approaches to quality and change management. Focusing also on critical 'success' and 'failure' factors (CSF & CFF; Al-Mashari & Zairi, 1999), two key issues emerged that were relevant to BPR's potential for success in such organisations; the concepts of 'Organizational Readiness' (Hammer & Stanton, 1995), and that of 'degrees' of BPR, or 'Project Radicalness' (Kettinger et al., 1997). A qualitative research approach was adopted, with 28, semi-structured, in-depth interviews held with 29 participants from the two co-operating LGOs. 'Purposive sampling' (Saunders, et al., 2000) was employed with participants selected from those organisations' BPR training cohorts and those involved more directly at junior, middle and senior management levels. Access was also granted to meetings and organisational documentation. Impact analysis was undertaken with group and individual interviews as necessary. The study's contribution to knowledge is firstly in the combination of the two concepts mentioned above, to create a more comprehensive 'self-diagnostic' mechanism by which UK LGOs might assess and increase their 'readiness' to undertake change of this nature, and/or modify the 'ambition' level of their change projects prior to embarking upon them, thereby greatly improving their likelihood of success. The research therefore has important findings in the areas of diagnosis, planning, implementation and performance measurement, and will be of significant interest to academics and practitioners engaged in understanding or implementing change within the services sector generally and public sector and LGOs in particular. Secondly, the research will also be of wider public interest revealing substantive issues for the future effective management and use of public finances. Whilst some change has been noted, real change does not appear to have yet been achieved, particularly at more senior and organisation-wide levels, and a more concerted and serious approach is necessary based on this new, composite, self-diagnostic process. There are indications that some of the change agencies themselves may be guilty of adding to further waste creation, and the evidence of low levels of 'understanding' of the true meaning and portents of 'reengineering' draws into serious question the oft- stated 70W failure rate of BPR.