THE CRUCIAL EDGE OF REINVENTION: A PRIMER ON SCOPING AND MEASURING FOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE

Abstract

INTRODUCTION You say your organization has decided to itself--or some portion of itself, at any rate? When thoughtfully planned and executed, reinvention can prove highly valuable for the people your organization serves. At the same time, it can be exhilarating and gratifying for the people within the organization. But because, as Hammer and Stanton (1995:xiv) caution, an many as seven of every ten organizations hoping to reinvent themselves fail in the attempt, erely setting off on the road to reengineering does not guarantee reaching the destination. The rush to improve can overshadow crucial activities and decisions that need to be handled as the margins: preliminary and follow-through responsibilities that distinguish genuine success from costly disappointment and dislocation. That is what this article is about. Being canny is crucial and it begins when a few basic-butsometimes-overlooked questions have been put on the table, seriously considered, and answered both honestly and fully. Here is a mainline sequence of ig Os: 1. In practical terms, what is the mission of the organization? What, based on the mission, do those served by the organization (customers, in reinvention parlance) expect? 2. Is the organization able to fulfill its mission from the point of view of the organization and its stakeholders and surpass the expectations of the customers it serves? If yes, pursue (i.e., reinforcement) and improvement (ie., small-scale changes) (Figure 1). If no, where does it fall short? Can the organization's current processes and the products/services they produce be improved enough to fulfill those expectations? If yes to above, pursue reengineering (i.e., small-scale change). If no to above and only no, pursue reengineering (ie., large-scale change). Only at this point should the organization entertain jump-off-the-cliff reinvention. 3. How can then organization know the degree to which it is fulfilling its mission and meeting expectations? 4. To the extent that performance falls short of expectations, how can the organization diagnose the likely sources of the performance gap? 5. How can the organization know the degree to which each component and individual contributes to the success of the organization? These are by no means the only questions an organization needs to consider but the questions address the preliminary and followthrough edges of meaningful change. SCOPING As with off-the-rack clothing and fast-food beverages, organization change comes in a range of sizes, from small to gargantuan (Nichols, 1995). Consequently, whatever the mechanism for initiating organizational change--business process redesign, reinvented government (Gore, 1993), improvement, applied entrepreneurialism (Osborne and Gaebler, 1992) or other labels--people within the organization may expect different degrees of change unless they have an in-common vision of what they plan to achieve. Figure 1 (Nichols, 1996:25) depicts three fundamental intensity levels (i.e., degrees) of change. Small. Process control, also known as control, is the first element of a triad described as a quality journey by Juran (Juran and Gryna, 1988). With its roots in statistical process control developed by Shewhart in the 1930s, process involves monitoring aspects (e.g., cost, time required) of a process to assure that all parameters remain within specified limits--that is, the classic manufacturing virtues of maintaining a standard and minimizing variation (e.g., monitor transcription volume and errors; track instances of food stamp misuse). Medium. The second level of the triad is process improvement, also known as incremental change, improvement, and continuous improvement. This is typically undertaken by introducing incremental changes to a process or an organizational unit--changes designed to further reduce variation, influence a parameter in a desired direction or both (e. …