The economic upheaval in recent years has accentuated the idea of an unpredictable future that is not always predictable by experts. Companies have had to adapt to changing environments in order to survive. The nature of the economic environment has necessitated the need for permanent flexibility, lower costs and customer satisfaction. However the best way to achieve these goals and the tools that will enable their fulfillment are still under debate. So far managers have had recourse tools that ensure a 10-20% gain in productivity.
The concept of reengineering was presented by Michael Hammer and James Champy a means of improving business performance by reinventing the organizational mode of functioning. According to them, Reengineering is the fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of business processes to achieve dramatic improvements in critical, contemporary measures of performance, such as cost, quality, service, and speed.
[...] The implementation of reengineering places great emphasis on the development of processes that are in line with market requirements. A process can be defined as a measured and structured set of activities designed to produce a specific object for a particular customer or market. Thus the objective of a process should be to find the best way to achieve goals within the company. The restructuring undertaken as part of the process of reengineering cannot be achieved by addressing narrowly defined tasks and working within an organization's predefined boundaries. [...]
[...] A radical approach to reengineering involves a complete reorganization of a business. Re-engineering therefore allows for the reinvention of the company on the basis of strategic choices. Thus, radical re-engineering enables the company to redesign its entire production system and dramatically increase its strategic and financial performance. Moreover, as we have stated previously, reengineering requires abandoning traditional silos and functions in business. It therefore leaves room for the transversal growth of the company as opposed to the verticality that represents functions or specialties of the company. [...]
[...] The use of technology as part of reengineering can therefore save time and increase the ease of knowledge transfer. The principles of reengineering have become so popular in recent years that they represent a virtual "one best way" for the organization of work. However, reengineering shows a failure rate of 70% in the U.S. mainly owing to the following reasons. II] The limitations inherent in the single commodity development: Some failures of reengineering are attributable to a flawed or incomplete implementation of the reengineering strategy, while others are more failures due to the unanticipated effects of doing so. [...]
[...] Reengineering is not possible without making anyone unhappy. The leadership must persist in its efforts even at the cost of some dissent among the employees Reengineering should not be attempted from the bottom up. It is the responsibility of the leaders to drive the process of reengineering, as they are best re best able to distinguish all business processes. Assigning someone who does not understand the process of reengineering, to lead the effort, is bound to result in the failure of the project. [...]
[...] Furthermore, Cooper and Markus, in Human Reengineering, found that many reengineering projects were perceived as having failed because of "resistance to change." However, the people were found not to resist the change per se, but the way they were treated in the change process, and the roles they play in the effort. Thus, the third limitation is the neglect of logical actors during the implementation of reengineering. This process ignores the existence of the workers as social actors, as individuals carrying rooting cultural identity and traditions in their professions. [...]
using our reader.