Management techniques developed to improve performance

In recent times, a plethora of management tools, techniques, ideas and methodologies, such as value engineering, change management, best practice and business process re-engineering (BPR) have been developed to assist executives to achieve a strong competitive situation.

Perhaps the most successful and widely promoted management technique of the last decade has been BPR, devised by Mike Hammer and James Champy. Whereas techniques such as total quality management (TQM) concentrate on improving existing processes, BPR requires the organization to rethink and redesign the process to bring it into line with customer needs. A successful BPR exercise will involve a number of distinct steps, starting with identifying the customer needs and ending with the redesign and implementation of the new process.

Some dramatic improvements in performance (15 to 50 per cent) have been claimed for successful BPR exercises. Against that it is sometimes reported that BPR projects fail more often than they succeed.

It goes without saying that all the management techniques have merit and will have benefited some of the organizations that have used them. It is equally possible that the vast majority of organizations would have obtained real benefit if the projects had been designed or carried out correctly.

Why should a technique that is so successful for some organizations fail when it is applied to others? Lack of or poor specialist advice is frequently blamed, but the ultimate responsibility for failure must lie with senior management. Senior management must take responsibility for performance improvement projects. In doing so they must understand what is required to bring about successful change and empower the project leader to bring about or recommend all the changes necessary. In addition they must be prepared to pass up the chance of limited short-term success if the best interests of the organization are best suited by a more long-term approach.