In business "change" is a part of life, as in life itself. It's prompted by new ideas, a changing environment, new competition and sometimes the healthy and simple need to move on.
So, what happens the day when the issue is raised?
One word - "organisational change".
Analysis of organisational structure ensues, roles, positions and hierarchies are scrutinised, boxes and interconnecting lines on a white-board are erased and drawn and erased and drawn.
Once a consensus is reached plans are set in motion and hapless employees are sent offsite to dangle from ropes and devise clever ways to cross rivers with a nail and a tooth. Seventy blue baseball caps have been ordered and a big kick-off party tries hard to drum up some enthusiasm.
Here's an even worse situation: Try to merge two different organisations that in principle are doing the same thing.
Reshuffle the org charts, streamline the lines of responsibility on the white-board, implement. What happens? The well made plan hits reality, i.e. when the top-to-bottom theory is merged into the bottom-to-top reality: Grinding of gears, and even longer "team-building" outings in the damp woods for the reluctant troops.
An extremely expensive, time consuming and amazingly inefficient way to change what is basically "how we do things".
So why is "business process change" equal to "organisational change" in most people's minds?
Because the organisational hierarchy is still seen, and used, as the framework for business processes - the mechanism that distributes, controls and measures work in most organisations but pure assembly lines.
But, times have changed: It is not the only available framework anymore. It is only the old framework. And it is the most inefficient framework. Full stop.
Do I need to mention the Thingamy work framework as an alternative? Nah, done that before.
Comments