These last years, many firms have been innovated by revising
their operational processes, to modernize them and eliminate the activities
that produced no value. However, we now know that this needs to be addressed by
the organization. In 1996, Michael Hammer developed some radical ideas on this
approach (taking over by process teams, with versatile employees, and creating
a process-to-coordinate process and integrating various processes and teams,
etc.). Our paper is a case study, in which we tried to verify whether these
ideas were used by the firms in the United States or if they remained only
utopic and theoretical ideas. Re-engineering Services
1.
In recent years, many companies have innovated
by fundamentally overhauling some of their business processes, or business
processes, both to modernize them and to eliminate non-value-producing
businesses. Today, however, we know that these innovations do not really bear
fruit unless, among other things, companies review in parallel their
organizational structure and their organization of work (Neilson et al. ,
2004). In fact, a more horizontal than vertical operation does not fit in well
with, in particular, the classical functional organizational structure (see
Figure 1), with its various departments that are silos siled against each other
(Davenport, 1993; and Champy, 1993, Ostroff, 1999).
2.
A few authors have examined this question of the
forms of organizational structure and organization of work that would be best
suited to operating with business processes in mind. Thus, Davenport (1993)
suggests that companies opt for a matrix structure, composed of a classic
functional hierarchy to which transversal responsibilities over the various
processes are added - cf.
3.
Hammer (1996) proposes that the processes (and
possibly their sub-processes) within a company be supported by work teams,
called "process teams", made up of versatile and empowered employees,
and each led and animated - but not supervised and controlled - by a
"process manager". On the other hand, if a process is divided into
several processes each of which is assumed by a team, then Hammer recommends
that a "team of process managers" be set up, this team having the
responsibility to collectively assume the responsibility process. process.
Finally, for the coordination and integration between the various processes and
the various teams that support them, Hammer suggests "It would be tragic
if the functional silos were replaced by process tunnels, if the old
fragmentation into departmental duchies simply gave way to protectorates of
processes, defended with the same jealousy. A business is not just a process
pool, it's a systemprocesses that need to interact to create all the outcomes
that consumers need. Without product development, order processing has nothing
to deliver, and without order processing, product development results remain on
the shelf. It is very important that individual processes are integrated, that
their borders harmonize harmoniously, that they cooperate rather than conflict.
The process council is the mechanism to get that. (Hammer, 1996, pp. 86-87)
4.
Ostroff (1999) argues that a horizontal
structure articulated around its key processes is the ideal solution for any
company wishing to optimize its competitiveness. At the base of this structure
(see Figure 4) are "teams", bringing together versatile employees with
complementary skills in relation to a mission for which they are jointly
responsible. These teams are themselves assembled into "process
groups", which are under the authority of a "process manager" or
a "process team". Process managers, on the other hand, are managers
who report to the senior management of the company.
5.
Finally, Neilson et al. (2004) distinguish four
or so organizational forms that are appropriate for process governance:
·
The process-centric structure, where process
managers manage the activities specific to each process
·
The structure articulated around processes and
functions, where certain functions remain to maintain economies of scale
·
The functional structure with functional
managers, who act as managers of cross-functional processes
·
Functional structure with process councils,
which are standing committees to share best practices, and which bring together
various functional managers (who are not process managers)
6.
Some might point out that the idea of
"process teams" is not unlike (...)
Beyond this lack of consensus among the authors, it
undeniably appears that the ideas put forward by Michael Hammer in 1996
represent a fairly important and radical break with the thought of corporate
organization. On the one hand, there is clearly no question that the basic unit
in a process-centric enterprise is a functional department, made up of
employees who do almost the same kind of work, but a a multidisciplinary team
composed of individuals from various complementary specialties and relatively
versatile individuals. On the other hand, the hierarchical structure no longer
exists: there are no more hierarchical superiors, no hierarchical line.
Instead, there are committees, consisting of spokespersons for the process
teams and support groups. Process managers are no longer bosses, but coaches,
guides, facilitators.
7.
Our research was to make a case study of a
company in order to see if these particularly original ideas Hammer manage to
infiltrate the industrial environment, to be taken up by those in the field, or
if these ideas remain rather theoretical and utopian references, completely
neglected or almost neglected by the leaders within the organizations.
Comments
Post a Comment