A process model of managing organizational change during business process redesign Arijit Sikdar Jayashree Payyazhi

Article information:

To cite this document: Arijit Sikdar Jayashree Payyazhi , (2014)," A process model of managing organizational change during business process redesign ", Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 20 Iss 6 pp. 971 - 998 Permanent link t o t his document : http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-02-2013-0020

Downloaded on: 19 March 2017, At : 20: 23 (PT) Ref erences: t his document cont ains ref erences t o 111 ot her document s. To copy t his document : permissions@emeraldinsight . com The f ullt ext of t his document has been downloaded 4969 t imes since 2014*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

(2014),"Ten principles of good business process management", Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 20 Iss 4 pp. 530-548 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-06-2013-0074

(2015),"Integrating the organizational change literature: a model for successful change", Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 28 Iss 2 pp. 234-262 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ JOCM-11-2013-0215

Access t o t his document was grant ed t hrough an Emerald subscript ion provided by emerald-srm: 602779 [ ]

For Authors

If you would like t o writ e f or t his, or any ot her Emerald publicat ion, t hen please use our Emerald f or Aut hors service inf ormat ion about how t o choose which publicat ion t o writ e f or and submission guidelines are available f or all. Please visit www. emeraldinsight . com/ aut hors f or more inf ormat ion.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF INDONESIA At 20:23 19 March 2017 (PT) Emerald is a global publisher linking research and pract ice t o t he benef it of societ y. The company manages a port f olio of more t han 290 j ournals and over 2, 350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an ext ensive range of online product s and addit ional cust omer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Relat ed cont ent and download inf ormat ion correct at t ime of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-7154.htm

A process model of managing Business process

redesign

organizational change during business process redesign

Arijit Sikdar and Jayashree Payyazhi

Faculty of Business & Management, University of Wollongong in Dubai, Dubai, UAE Received 16 February 2013

Revised 19 July 2013 6 October 2013

Abstract 30 November 2013

Accepted 30 January 2014 Purpose – Business process implementation has been primarily seen as a redesign of the workflow with the consequent organizational change assumed to be taking place automatically or through

a process of “muddling through”. Although evidence suggests that 70 per cent of business process reengineering programmes have failed due to lack of alignment with corporate change strategy, the question of alignment of workflow redesign with the organizational change process has not received adequate attention. The purpose of this paper is to provide a framework for managing organizational change in a structured manner during workflow redesign, a perspective missing in the literature on business process management (BPM) implementation. Design/methodology/approach – This paper attempts to integrate the 8-S dimensions of Higgins model across the different phases of workflow redesign to develop a process framework of managing organizational change during BPM workflow redesign. As an exploratory study the paper draws on existing literature on BPM and change alignment to conceptualize an alignment framework of associated managerial activities involved during different phases of BPM workflow redesign. The framework is evaluated against two case studies of business process implementation to substantiate how lack of alignment leads to failure in BPM implementation. Findings – The paper provides a conceptual framework of how organizational change should be managed during BPM implementation. The model suggests the sequence of alignment of the 8-S dimensions (Higgins, 2005) with the different phases of the workflow redesign and identifies the role of the managerial levels in the organization in managing the alignment of the 8-S dimensions during business process change. Practical implications – This framework would provide managers with an execution template of how to achieve alignment of the workflow redesign with the 8-S dimensions thus facilitating effective organizational change during business process implementation. Originality/value – This paper proposes a process model of how organizational elements should be aligned with the workflow redesign during business process change implementation. No such model is available in BPM literature proposing alignment between hard and soft factors.

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF INDONESIA At 20:23 19 March 2017 (PT) Keywords Change management, Strategic alignment, Business process redesign, Process model Paper type Conceptual paper

1. Introduction As the basis of competition shifts from cost and quality to flexibility and responsiveness the importance of delivering value through process management has increased significantly. It has been recognized that business process management (BPM) plays a central role in creating sustainable competitive advantage as empirical research suggests positive correlation between process management and business success (McCormack and Johnson, 2001; McCormack et al., 2009; Skerlavaj et al., 2007).

Business Process Management

BPM requires coordinating and integrating cross-functional activities to deliver value

Journal

to customers (Guha and Kettinger, 1993; Strnadl, 2006). The root of BPM lies in the Vol. 20 No. 6, 2014

pp. 971-998

concept of business process reengineering (BPR) in the 1990s, introduced by Hammer r Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1463-7154 (1990) and Davenport and Short (1990), which advocated a new approach to the

DOI 10.1108/BPMJ-02-2013-0020

BPMJ

management of business processes for producing radical improvements in

performance. This has led to the replacement of the functional hierarchical perspective of organizing business with the principle of organizing the business as

a set of value-adding processes. Examples like Ford’s inefficient accounts payable system with respect to Mazda (Hammer, 1990) and Xerox’s inefficient office systems with respect to Canon (Davenport and Short, 1990) demonstrated how reengineering of

business processes as a set of value-adding processes resulted in radical breakthrough in performance.

However, studies have confirmed that 70 per cent of BPR programmes have failed because BPR programmes have not been integrated with the corporate change strategy (Champy, 1995). One reason for this is the overemphasis on the application of information technology (IT) solutions as IT was considered to be a fundamental enabler of process automation in the reengineering programme (Hammer and Champy, 1993; Venkatraman, 1993; Davenport and Short, 1990; Grover et al., 1993) while underemphasizing the soft systems of management (Carr, 2003; Scheepers and Scheepers, 2008; Cooper and Markus, 1995). Though IT has the capability of providing the means to achieve breakthrough performance, according to O’Neill and Sohal (1999) in order to have a full understanding of the effects of reengineering it is necessary to understand the whole business process and how it fits into the organizational system. Evidence from business process implementation suggests that factors like top management support, project champions, communication and inter-departmental cooperation (Ranganathan and Dhaliwal, 2001; Ariyachandra and Frolick, 2008; Bandara et al., 2005) are critical success factors in BPM. As new business process creates a change in the organizational system of relationships, workflows, tasks, structure, etc. so also there is a need to develop an understanding of how the new business process is aligned with the overall organizational system.

The need for alignment of business process with the organizational system is evident from Dooley and Johnson’s (2001) work wherein they observed that New Product Development change efforts were characterized by elements of both reengineering (for alignment with external environment) and continuous quality improvements (for alignment with internal organization). How this alignment is achieved is an important issue in any BPM as successful alignment would facilitate in enhancing the organizational value chain. A survey of international experiences in BPR implementation by Al-Mashari et al. (2001) revealed that organizational experience in integrating change management with BPR implementation is still at its

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF INDONESIA At 20:23 19 March 2017 (PT) infancy. In this context, the purpose of this paper is to propose a framework to facilitate the alignment of business process redesign with the organizational change efforts during business process redesign implementation.

2. BPM Hammer and Champy (1993) defines businesses process as “a collection of activities that takes one or more kinds of input and creates an output that is of value to the customer”. BPR, popularized in the 1990s, is considered as the analysis and design of work flows and processes within and between organizations for achieving radical performance improvements (Davenport and Short, 1990). The focus on the narrow technical perspective (Taylorism approach) without giving enough importance to an integrated holistic approach is seen as one of the important reasons behind BPR failures (Al-Mashari et al., 2001). This need for an integrated holistic approach has led to the development of the concept of BPM. The integrated approach of BPM is evident 2. BPM Hammer and Champy (1993) defines businesses process as “a collection of activities that takes one or more kinds of input and creates an output that is of value to the customer”. BPR, popularized in the 1990s, is considered as the analysis and design of work flows and processes within and between organizations for achieving radical performance improvements (Davenport and Short, 1990). The focus on the narrow technical perspective (Taylorism approach) without giving enough importance to an integrated holistic approach is seen as one of the important reasons behind BPR failures (Al-Mashari et al., 2001). This need for an integrated holistic approach has led to the development of the concept of BPM. The integrated approach of BPM is evident

techniques and software to design, enact, control and analyze operational processes

redesign

involving humans, organizations, applications, documents and other sources of information” (van der Aalst et al., 2003). This integrated perspective of BPM is supported by the distinction between BPM as a holistic management philosophy as against BPR being about radical process redesign (Choong, 2013). Similarly, the holistic perspective of BPM is reflected by Ko et al. (2009) representation of BPM as practical,

iterative and incremental in fine-tuning business processes as compared to BPR’s focus on radical obliteration of business processes.

2.1 Business process redesign methodologies Methodology indicates the application of an organized set of methods and techniques to guide a process. According to Barrett (1994), the key to successful process management lies in the development of a vision of the process. The concept of business as a process can be traced to the application of Porter’s (1980) value chain to visualize the business as a combination of core and supporting activities directed towards generating value to achieve the organizational objectives. This modelling is at the macro level of the process and does not give any indication of the linkage between activities and the flow of decision and information. To support business process implementation, various structured methodologies (Klein, 1994; Petrozzo and Stepper, 1994; Furey, 1993; Barrett, 1994) have been proposed. All these methodologies indicate that business process implementation is a stage wise process consisting of certain essential components such as strategizing and goal setting, feasibility analysis, process analysis, understanding customer requirements, performance measurement, designing improvements, prototyping and process mapping and instituting organizational change to implement the new process (Al-Mashari and Zairi, 2000). Similarly, Spanyi (2003) proposed a methodology of business process implementation that called for adoption of eight principles, such as – using customer perspective, awareness of business strategy, creating organizational alignment, creating enabling organization design, using enabling technology, etc. to be followed during business process redesign. As evident, the structured methodologies have recognized the need to institute organizational change/alignment for redesign of the business process. However, these methodologies do not indicate how the organizational change/ alignment are to be instituted. Managing the organizational change requires answer to questions like what specific tasks need to be covered, what should be the timing and

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF INDONESIA At 20:23 19 March 2017 (PT) sequence, which actors/roles are involved, etc. The importance of the essential components/principles, as identified in the structured methodologies, in driving the success of business process implementation has been supported in the business process literature. Researchers have found that successful business process implementation requires creating strong linkage between business process and business strategy (Teng et al., 1994; Harvey, 1995) or when the business process architecture enables the organization to link with customer needs (Edwards and Peppard, 1994) or when organizational core competencies are aligned with the business processes (Bhattacharya and Gibbons, 1996). Involvement of different actors is supported by Andreu et al. (1997) framework that link learning at different organizational levels during process innovation. According to Zairi and Sinclair (1995) bottom-up approach to implementation can achieve better performance indicating the importance of the operating people. Also increased acceptance of the business process has been found to be linked to integrating multiple stakeholder

BPMJ

perspective in the measurement of business process performance (Yen, 2009). Choong

(2013) argue that performance measurement system for BPM should focus on the value chain rather than the workflow. All these research highlight the importance of alignment of the business process with the specific organizational elements. However, the research fails to provide answer on how the alignment process is operationalized. For example, in creating strong linkage between business process and business

strategy what are the specific tasks, who performs, when, how to manage the impact, etc. are not addressed. Also there is a lack of a comprehensive framework that would align the various organizational elements with the different stages of business process redesign from an end-to-end perspective.

2.2 Business process modelling techniques

A variety of modelling techniques were developed to support process mapping, analysis and design, for example, use of simulation to redesign processes (Ackere et al., 1993). Kettinger et al. (1997) provides a detailed review of the various techniques used in different aspects of BPM like problem solving (fishbone diagram, Pareto diagram), process mapping (process flowchart, role activity diagram, data flow diagram), process measurement (activity based costing, statistical process control), process prototyping (coloured petri nets), etc. In addition to those discussed there exists other modelling tools and techniques that have been developed for business process redesign, a detailed review of each tool is available in Aguilar-Saven (2004). Vergidis et al. (2008) have classified BPM tools and techniques into three categories – mathematical models (facilitating process optimization), diagrammatic models (facilitating graphic representation of the process) and business process languages (facilitating automation of the process design). In addition, BPM standards, like Universal Modeling Language and Business Process Modeling Notation, have been developed to facilitate common language amongst practitioners, academics and IT implementers. In a survey of BPM standards by Ko et al. (2009), these BPM standards were classified into the following categories:

(1) graphical standards: this allows users to express business processes and their possible flow and transitions in a diagrammatic way;

(2) execution standards: this computerizes the deployment and automation of

business processes; and

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF INDONESIA At 20:23 19 March 2017 (PT) (3) interchange standards: this facilitates portability of data, e.g. the portability of business process designs in different graphical standards.

Recent developments in modelling have been related to reusability of business process models for greater efficiency and consistency (Aldin and de Cesare, 2011). This has led the creation of ontologies (semantic models that tend to represent real world systems) like SUPER and BWW for discovering process patterns.

The business process modelling tools and techniques have focused on addressing the operational/technical issues in process redesign to achieve performance improvement (Chang, 1994). The review of BPM standards by Ko (2009) showed their incorporation in various BPM software to support workflow management. This is also supported by Ko et al. (2009) wherein they found that many BPM Suites are actually workflow management systems. Thus, BPM modelling tools and techniques do not throw light on how the process workflow redesign should be aligned with the various organizational soft system elements.

2.3 Business process change management

Business process

According to Davenport (1993), successful BPM implementation requires fundamental

redesign

organizational change in terms of organizational structure, culture and management processes. These changes would impact the human aspect of management as it involves redesignation of work or relationships amongst individuals involved in the execution of the business process. Some authors like Mumford and Beekman (1994) and Bruss and Roos (1993) have suggested that management of organizational change

is the largest task in reengineering. Researchers have identified various factors influencing successful implementation of business process change. One such factor is commitment of leadership as it plays a role in providing a clear vision of the future (Hammer and Stanton, 1995; Law and Ngai, 2007). Similarly, empowering employees has been found to be an effective factor for business process redesign implementation success as it promotes self-management and collaborative teamwork (Mumford, 1995). Communication is considered crucial to successful business process implementation (Arendt et al., 1995; Terziovski et al., 2003) as it breaks the barrier between those in charge of the change initiatives and those getting impacted by them. Strategic visioning is necessary to link business processes with potential customers and anticipate future processes (Clemons, 1995) as well as to motivate organizational actors (Carr and Johansson, 1995). Furthermore, it has been identified that factors like organizational structure and inter-departmental interaction (Grover et al., 1999), culture (Willcocks et al., 1997)and organizational politics (Boonstra, 2006) play a critical role in successful implementation as they help to manage relationships by promoting trust, openness and resolving conflicts.

However, the business process change management does not provide any guidance on how these various organizational elements are to be incorporated with the stages of workflow design to indicate the sequence of organizational change during business process redesign. This failure to consider the linkages between hard and soft factors has been attributed as the main reason for BPM failures (Trkman, 2010). Thus there exists a distinct knowledge gap in how to integrate the technical perspective of process redesign with the human and strategic perspective of managing organizational change. Table I provides a summary of the knowledge gap that exists in business process implementation.

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF INDONESIA At 20:23 19 March 2017 (PT) Main theme

Key findings

Knowledge gap

Business process BPR implementation is a stage How to institute organizational change redesign

wise process consisting of key

to support the business process?

methodologies

activities required to design the

How should the organizational change

business process

be managed?

Successful BPR implementation requires How to create and manage the alignment with the organization

alignment?

Business process Business process workflow can be How the business process workflow is modelling

represented in variety of forms to facilitate aligned with the organizational

techniques

elements- structure, HR, culture, etc.? Business process Successful BPM implementation requires How to link the organizational factors

optimization and automation

Table I. change

Review of business management

fundamental organizational change in

with the process workflow?

terms of organizational structure, culture How should the organizational factors process implementation

and management processes

be implemented?

literature

BPMJ

3. Change management and strategic alignment

As indicated in previous sections, organizations that are facing increasing pressure to sustain and surpass competition are required to proactively introduce various change interventions. Depending upon the complexity of the triggers from the internal and external business environment, business leaders may engage in doing things better through incremental improvements within the existing organizational structure and

processes or introduce radical and transformational changes usually involving creation of new configurations with regard to systems, structure, process, technology, etc. As is evident, Business process interventions are an example of one such transformational intervention to revitalize organizations in response to stakeholder demands. However, the failure rate of such transformational changes are high because they are high-intensity changes involving substantial changes to existing systems and processes that lead to ambiguity and uncertainty (Beer and Nohria, 2000). This is supported by McNulty and Ferlie’s (2002) study that provided mixed results regarding the outcomes of business process interventions from the health-care sector.

3.1 Implementing change Beer et al. (1990) provide evidence that while conventional thinking suggests that organization-wide transformational changes is best brought about in a structured manner with leadership support from the top, evidence from organizations that have succeeded in transforming organizations indicate the contrary. Transformational changes that succeeded were brought about through aligning tasks at a unit level or departmental level which were then spread across the organization in an integrated and aligned manner through a bottom-up approach. This was achieved by first creating a critical mass at the operational level through engaging them in problem- solving thereby proactively changing assumptions and mobilizing commitment, and then providing the necessary support to develop new competencies and finally modifying structures, performance management and reward systems to sustain the continued effectiveness of newly articulated roles and responsibilities, and then spreading this change to an organization-wide level. The holistic approach and bottoms-up engagement is strengthened by having transformational leaders who demonstrate sustained commitment throughout the change process through their rhetoric, actions and decisions. Support for a holistic approach to change management comes from Beer and Nohria (2000) who advocate combining a top-down economic approach (with a focus on modifying structures and systems in a directive manner to

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF INDONESIA At 20:23 19 March 2017 (PT) create shareholder value) with a bottom-up organizational development approach (focused on changing the deep rooted assumptions and thus the organizational culture through various human related interventions aimed at building employee capabilities) for transformational changes to succeed. Adcroft et al. (2008) further propose that irrespective of whether the approach to change is top-down or bottoms up, it must proceed in an integrated manner with an accurate diagnoses of why change is required and an informed analyses of the desired outcomes with active engagement of key stakeholders across all levels during all stages of the transformation process.

Operationalization of this holistic approach is informed by various process models of change which offer useful insights on how to navigate the complexities of the change process in a step-wise and integrated manner. The foundations for much of change research and specifically the process models which advocate a planned approach have been laid by the three-step process model of change by Kurt Lewin which proposed Operationalization of this holistic approach is informed by various process models of change which offer useful insights on how to navigate the complexities of the change process in a step-wise and integrated manner. The foundations for much of change research and specifically the process models which advocate a planned approach have been laid by the three-step process model of change by Kurt Lewin which proposed

and refreezing new changed behaviours and skills with supportive institutional

redesign

mechanisms are necessary to sustain transformational changes (Lewin, 1951; Burnes, 2004a, b). Hayes and Hyde’s (1998) generic process model of change likewise proposes that before introducing any transformational change, one must first identify the external and internal triggers for change and make it explicit to create awareness regarding the need for change. They propose that one must then convert this need into

a desire for change through engaging key stakeholders in accurate diagnoses of internal and external alignment factors which would create a sense of urgency which must then be channelized through appropriate planning such as through setting timelines, allocating resources and identifying change agents concluding with a review of the change process to spread and sustain good practices.

Much of this research has recognized that at the heart of this holistic and integrated change management approach lies the various people related concerns that must be proactively addressed through stake-holder management, leadership, communication and motivation. For example, Armenakis and Harris (2002) propose that in order to create change readiness the content of communication must provide evidence to key stakeholders regarding the discrepancy between existing state and desired state. In addition, the change must be perceived as appropriate and this can be achieved through engaging key stakeholders in diagnoses and problem-solving which also enhances their sense of control over the outcome. According to Armenakis and Harris (2002), this increased self-efficacy enhances change readiness which is further strengthened by perceptions of support from senior management with regard to information and resources, a finding supported by Fugate et al. (2012) who also found that fairness in decisions as evidenced through procedural, distributive and interactional justice played a major role in reducing perceptions of threat during periods of change, thereby decreasing resistance. The role of leadership and various organizational socialization strategies in bringing about changes in deep-rooted assumptions thereby facilitating transformational change has been recognized in much of change literature (Taormina, 2008; Beer and Nohria, 2000; Burke and Litwin, 1992; Kuhl et al., 2005). Kotter’s (1995) eight step model of transformational leadership suggests that for transformational changes to succeed, leaders have to play a crucial role in establishing a sense of urgency by unfreezing assumptions, forming a powerful guiding coalition, creating and communicating a compelling vision, empowering change recipients to act through creating facilitating organizational systems, and then

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF INDONESIA At 20:23 19 March 2017 (PT) consolidating and institutionalizing the change. Research also proposes the need to address change readiness at individual, group and organizational levels because their antecedents and consequences are different further suggesting that both affective and cognitive components of change readiness must be addressed while using different styles of communication to address emotional vs cognitive needs of change recipients (Rafferty et al., 2013; Jick, 2003). For example, there is evidence in literature to suggest that the change message itself may be conveyed using different techniques, depending upon the stage of the change process and the maturity and information requirements of change recipients. These techniques may include direct communication through verbal messages or selling the message with an intention to persuade, proactive sharing of information with key stakeholders, consensus-building through engaging change recipients in discussion and problem-solving and provision of relevant information from internal and external sources (Armenakis and Harris, 2002; Jawahare and McLaughlin, 2001).

BPMJ

3.2 Alignment in change implementation

It is evident from the aforementioned literature on change management that the sustained success of transformational changes are impacted by the extent to which those leading the change are taking a holistic and integrated approach with a focus on both the hard factors such as structure, systems, technology, processes and the softer issues, such as people and culture.

Close strategic linkage between competitive strategy and the operations function is also crucial (Rhee and Mehra, 2006). Particularly significant for operationalizing this holistic approach is an understanding of internal or external fit or the process of alignment that emerges from the open systems view of organizations which proposes that changes to any one element of an organization will have an equal impact on other elements. The implication therefore is that any change whether it is transactional or transformational will fail if internal and external alignment issues are not addressed in

a timely manner. Various diagnostic models of change have been proposed in literature which informs practitioners on how to achieve this alignment. For example, Nadler and Tushman’s (1980) congruence model proposes that organizations are dynamic entities and organizational effectiveness can only be achieved if changes to the various internal elements such as the task that comprise the various activities of the organization, skills and competencies of people, structural and social dimensions, both formal and informal are informed by the organizations’ strategic goals which itself must be informed by external contingencies. Furthermore it is proposed that the extent of fit or alignment between these internal components determines the success of change efforts which in turn thus impact organizational performance. Other models of internal alignment echo a similar view in that effectiveness of an organization is impacted by the degree of fit that exists between strategy, structure and systems, culture, skills and resources (Kotter, 1980).

While much of the literature on alignment recognizes the significance of fit in internal elements, it is also recognized that tightly coupled systems (as evidenced by strong fit between internal elements) are at risk of decreased adaptiveness. It is thus recommended that in order to remain competitive, organizations must develop robust systems and processes by which environmental changes can be detected and addressed proactively such that incremental changes can be brought about within the internal configurations to continuously align with changes in the external environment (Siggelkow, 2001). A very useful model for diagnosing both internal and external alignment has been provided by Burke and Litwin (1992) who

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF INDONESIA At 20:23 19 March 2017 (PT) propose that transformational changes that are mostly driven by extreme and often unexpected pressures from the external environment require creation of new configurations or doing different things which can only be achieved if changes are brought to the fundamental elements of the organization such as organizational cultures defined by deep-rooted values along with transformational leadership and changes to organizational strategy itself. Changes in these key elements will then impact and inform lower-order elements including the structure, human resource (HR) practices and policies, tasks and roles, all of which when in alignment will lead to transformational changes across the organization. However, transactional changes intended to modify existing systems or behaviours would only require interventions at the unit, or departmental level and can be managed through project management delegated to key people at the unit level. Thus this model offers useful insights to change leaders with regard to the focus and scope of changes (Burke and Litwin, 1992).

Schneider et al. (2003) provide further evidence that in organizations whose strategic Business process

goal is that of service excellence, one can find a constant reciprocal and synergistic

redesign

relationship between strategic direction, HR practices and organizational culture such that all actions are integrated with each other thus reinforcing the message of service excellence. Buch and Wetzel (2001) suggest that alignment of culture with strategy can be brought about through engaging organizational incumbents in

a reflection on existing culture, followed by active data collection and documentation

of misalignments between structure, culture, HR practices and systems. These gaps may then be resolved through short term, intermediate or long-term change interventions to strategy, structure, people, process or systems depending upon the extent of discrepancy between desired culture and existing culture (Buch and Wetzel, 2001). Higgins’s 8-S model of strategic alignment likewise provides a very useful model to inform practitioners on how to achieve cross-functional alignment for enhancing strategic performance (Higgins, 2005). Higgins proposes that “at a minimum, executives must align the following cross-functional organizational factors – structure, systems and processes, leadership style, staff, resources, and shared values – with each new strategy that arises in order for that strategy to succeed, in order for strategic performance to occur” (Higgins, 2005, p. 4).

The significance of this holistic approach in implementing Business Process Change is also being increasingly recognized in BPM literature. Failure to align people and organizational culture is recognized as one of the key barriers with regard to transforming organizations from a silo-based functional culture to a process-based culture and systemic thinking underlying BPM as this requires cross-functional integration (Segatto et al., 2013; da Silva et al., 2012; Crawford and Pollack, 2004). Palmberg (2010) provides evidence collected through a multiple-case study approach that movement from a pure functional to a completely process-based structure puts substantial pressure on employees because of the increased accountability required of them, which in turn acts as a barrier to BPM implementation. A combined soft and hard approach to BPM is thus advocated, wherein key roles such as that of process owners and process improvement teams and steering committees be designated at all stages of the change process with clear responsibilities, accountabilities and sufficient power; followed by focusing on the hard aspects, by taking a structured approach focusing only on those processes that are critical for the accomplishment of the organization’s strategic priorities (Siriram, 2012; Palmberg, 2010). Further support for the significance of change management during BPM comes from a Project Alignment

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF INDONESIA At 20:23 19 March 2017 (PT) Model proposed by Box and Platts (2005) which recognizes the significance of both internal and external alignment for project implementation to succeed. This model also recognizes the significance of empowered, engaged, committed and competent project leaders distributed across the organization with clear project related accountabilities and an organizational culture characterized by a collaborative ethos essential for building a readiness for change.

It is evident from the aforementioned literature that the success of techno-structural interventions such as business process redesign would depend on taking a holistic and integrated approach with particular emphasis on fit or alignment with HR practices and strategic deliverables. As BPR encompasses transformational change elements which impact the organization in totality, therefore piece-meal and compartmentalized approaches to bring about this change will not have any sustainable impact on organizational improvement. Empirical evidence suggest that BPM efforts have failed due to lack of alignment with organizational culture and HR systems and practices,

BPMJ

rigid hierarchical structures and managers with low competence and commitment

(Appelbaum and Lee, 2000; Grover et al. 1995) which signifies the central role played by alignment in business process change. In view of the importance of change management in BPM interventions, Kettinger and Grover (1995) have highlighted the need for integration of process management and change management in their theoretical framework of business process change management.

While literature does provide evidence that transformational changes such as business process redesign fail due to a compartmentalized approach to change and inadequate attention to alignment issues, no studies have as yet provided any practical tool to map the process of technical implementation while achieving alignment at strategic, cultural and structural level.

4. Achieving alignment during BPM: an operational framework

4.1 Alignment of technical and change sub-processes The nature of business process redesign indicates a change in the way things are going to be done within the organization in the future. This change not only impacts the technical dimension but also the human dimension of behaviour and interaction (Al-Mashari and Zairi, 2000). Every existing organization has its organizational reality represented by assumptions and beliefs of the individuals and groups in the organization (Van Maanen and Schein, 1979; Weick, 1995) and any change process creates a new organizational reality as existing assumptions and beliefs are altered. Business process redesign being a change process, is supposed to bring about a new organizational reality and thus it is necessary for BPM implementation to understand the existing organizational reality in order to chart a way for the creation of the new organizational reality. Thus any BPM implementation would involve an organizational change sub process running alongside the technical (workflow redesign) sub process (Figure 1). According to Weick’s (1988) enactment theory, people enact limitations upon the system to avoid issues and thus the existing organizational reality will be enacted to avoid implementing the redesigned process. Overcoming this would require creating the new organizational reality to align with the redesigned business process in BPM.

Change sub process

(Organizational reality)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF INDONESIA At 20:23 19 March 2017 (PT)

Task Roles

Resource Allocation

alignment

Technical sub process

Identify new Design workflow Execute new

(Workflow redesign)

Value chain

value chain

Figure 1. Alignment in BPM

The need for alignment between the BPM technical process and the new organizational Business process

reality raises important questions about how this alignment needs to be performed.

redesign

What is the role of the different levels of management in the process of alignment? What activities of alignment need to be performed during the stages of BPM implementation? What should be the sequence of activities for alignment? Answers to these questions would provide managers a practical guide on how to integrate the technical perspective of BPR with the human perspective of managing organizational

change.

4.2 Developing the alignment framework The methodology followed for developing the alignment framework is based on the theory of pattern matching and is more applicable for complex situations (Trochim, 1989). Pattern matching always involves an attempt to link two patterns where one is

a theoretical pattern and the other is an observed or operational one. In this case the theoretical pattern is represented by the change management alignment theories wherein it is hypothesized that alignment of organizational elements leads to performance improvement. Since BPM involves a change in organizational practice it could be hypothesized that performance improvement is possible when there is organizational alignment. The observational pattern is represented by the stage wise implementation of business process change as depicted by the stage-activity (S-A) framework of BPR implementation (Kettinger et al., 1997). The S-A framework has been based on extensive review of literature on BPR methodologies, tools and techniques and interview with practitioners (Al-Mashari and Zairi, 2000) and thus is

a comprehensive representation of business process redesign spread over six stages. The inferential task involves the attempt to relate, link or match the theoretical and observational patterns to develop the framework.

Based on the S-A framework of Kettinger et al. (1997), the BPM implementation has been conceptualized to occur over three phases – conceptual, design and execution. The conceptual phase is where the process value chain is aligned to the strategic objectives and matches with the Envision and Initiate stage activities of the S-A framework. The design phase involves the redesign of the process creating new workflows and linkages required to implement the new value chain conceptualization and matches with the Diagnose and Redesign stage activities of the S-A framework. And the execution phase involves the rollout of the new practices and processes as part of the new workflow and matches with the Reconstruct and Evaluate S-As of the S-A

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF INDONESIA At 20:23 19 March 2017 (PT) framework. To address organizational change alignment during the three key phases of BPM implementation one of the most comprehensive internal and external strategic alignment model, Higgins’s (2005) 8-S Model of Strategy Execution, a revision of McKinsey’s 7-S Model (Peters and Waterman, 1982) is used. The 8-S model states that Strategic performance as desired can be achieved by organizations only if eight key organizational factors including Structure, Systems and processes, leadership Style, Staff, reSources, and Shared values are aligned with Strategy. Table II shows how the activities across the BPM implementation phases map with the primary factors in the 8-S model.

4.3 Role of managerial levels in business process implementation The involvement of different managerial levels in different stages of BPM implementation is supported by Ko’s (2009) typology of business processes into

BPMJ

20,6 Higgin’s 8 S

Kettinger et al. (1997) S-A framework

BPM phases

Stages

Activities

alignment factors

Conceptual

Envision

Establish management commitment and vision Strategy

(linking value

Discover reengineering opportunities

chain to

Select processes for redesign

strategy)

Initiate

Inform stakeholders

Shared values

Organize reengineering teams

reSources

Conduct project planning

Design (design

Diagnose

Document and analyse existing process Structure

of workflow)

Redesign

Prototype and detailed design of new process Structure

Design human resource structure Analyse and design

Systems Table II.

Style Mapping of alignment

Execution

Reconstruct Reorganize human resource roles

Staff factors across BPM

(executing the

Train users

Strategic Phases

practices)

Evaluate

Evaluate performance

Link to continuous improvement

Performance

operational, management and strategic levels based on management activities. Even Andreu et al. (1997) work on process innovation indicate integration of learning across individual, organization and business levels. According to Harmon (2007) business process change initiatives involve three levels of managerial concern – enterprise level, process/departmental level and activity level. Differentiation between the levels is necessary as activities at different levels require different participants, different methodologies and different types of support (Harmon, 2007). The goals and tasks associated with the three levels are depicted in Table III.

4.3.1 Enterprise level managers. The primary role of the enterprise level managers is to obtain the alignment of the 8-S dimensions – Strategy, Shared values and reSources. During the conceptual phase, the enterprise level managers play a primary role in identifying the value chain that would serve the strategic objectives. This would require these managers to understand the organization goals and relate what business processes would be required to meet the goals.

However, for the BPM implementation to be successful this envisaged value chain needs to be have the buy-in of the process/departmental managers as the execution of

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF INDONESIA At 20:23 19 March 2017 (PT)

Managerial level

Goals and measures

Key tasks

Enterprise

Define organizational

Strategic positioning

level

goals and measures of

Define process architecture

organizational success

Performance measurement BPM governance planning

Process/

Define process goals

Create process redesign and improvement projects

departmental

and measures of

Process management

level

process success

Plan budget and schedule Organize resource and define responsibilities Monitor process

Table III.

Activity level

Define activity goals

Job design

Role of managerial levels

and measures of

Training development

in business process

Knowledge management implementation

activity success

IT application development IT application development

major difficulties of getting the buy-in is that process/departmental managers have

redesign

developed a mental frame of how work is being done and what roles they play. Obtaining the buy-in would require the enterprise level managers to change the perspective of the process/departmental managers towards the new value chain. This would require the alignment of the mental frame of the process/departmental managers with the enunciated strategic values of the organization. Execution of the

new business process would require resource acquisition to support the business process accordingly. As enterprise level managers controls the mobilization and allocation of resources, it could align the existing organizational resources with the requirements of the new value chain and thus drive change in the behaviour of process/ departmental managers. According to Noda and Bower (1996), the escalation of

a firm’s strategic commitment to the new businesses is a consequence of iterations of resource allocation. So the enterprise level managers need to play a primary role in obtaining the resource alignment with the redesigned business process.

The new business process would require the buy-in of the activity level managers for successful implementation. This would require a behavioural change of the activity level managers. As the activity level managers are not under the direct control of the enterprise level managers, they would only be able to impact the behavioural change through indirect methods like sharing the strategic vision. Thus enterprise level managers would play a primary role in creating a shared understating within the wider organization of the role of the new business process in meeting the strategic goals.