Process leadership and collaborative management in

  • Detail

With the increasingly complex living environment and the impact of more and more uncertain factors, enterprise organizations are facing challenges from three aspects: integrity, variability and complexity, specifically, including the multidimensional measurement of enterprise value and performance, the diversification of customer needs Competition is intensifying and technology upgrading is accelerating. Therefore, how to deal with these challenges has become the theme of continuous exploration in management theory and practice. Looking at the development of the past few decades, the more consistent way to deal with challenges is to control change with change, that is, to deal with environmental changes with change. Among the many methods of change, one kind of methods has received great attention and provided some support for the survival of enterprises, starting with BPR, followed by 6 Σ、 LM, CMM and information support. In practice, more and more enterprises have achieved success by adopting these methods, thus promoting the theoretical circle to explore their secret of success. However, few studies comprehensively consider the relationship between these methods on the whole, so as to make them complement each other and play a synergistic effect. Under this background, this paper aims to find their commonness (process dominance) and differences by systematically reviewing and analyzing the production background and functions of the above four methods, and on this basis, to explore the possibility of collaborative management of them, as well as the Enlightenment of their process dominance and synergy on dealing with management challenges

II. Analysis of four change methods and their limitations

as a mainstream management change method, BPR, 6 Σ、 The essence of LM and CMM provides great guidance for the success of organizational change. However, any reform method cannot be perfect, but only a solution suitable for a specific environment and problem, or a response to some aspects of a problem. The following is a review of their origin and development, and an analysis of their roles and limitations

1.bpr and its limitations

in the traditional functional system, the continuous improvement of technology can no longer promote the continuous improvement of performance, which leads to the "productivity paradox". In this context, hammer et al. (1990) proposed the concept of process reengineering, trying to achieve substantial improvements in cost, quality, service and speed through fundamental rethinking and thorough redesign of enterprise business processes. They define a process as an activity that converts one or more inputs into valuable outputs for customers. A process has a starting point, an ending point, and inputs and outputs. The basic idea of process reengineering is to "lose the outdated rules and basic assumptions behind the operation", "We must first challenge the original assumptions and discard the old rules that lead to low enterprise performance. Reengineering is not about modifying, reducing staff, automating or making minor changes, but about pushing everything down and starting from scratch.

the essence of process reengineering is to achieve a significant improvement in performance through the redesign of core processes, that is, rethinking the combination of business activities. In general, process reengineering is between enterprise strategy and customers A bridge has been built between them to tell people how enterprises should deal with competition and challenges, build and maintain sustainable competitive advantages in a customer-oriented environment. Obviously, the impact of process reengineering on the idea of organizational change is fundamental, and its slogan of "push everything down and start again" further explains the idea of fundamental change. However, it is also people's misunderstanding of this idea that leads to the dilemma of process reengineering in practice. A few years ago, a study showed that 60% - 80% of the enterprises implementing BPR eventually encountered failure, and raised doubts about this kind of experimental machine's ability to simulate the internal mechanical property changes of metal materials under long-term stress. Hammer, the advocate of BPR, and others have reflected on this phenomenon and believe that the root cause of this phenomenon is that most business processes and procedures have been implemented without design at all, but have been corrected and formally improved later, and lack of integrated application and thinking of information technology (it). In addition, the lack of management measures corresponding to the process is also one of the important reasons for the criticism of process reengineering

2.6 Σ And its limitations

6 Σ It is a management method developed by Motorola in 1987. In 1994, Allied Signal promoted it as an innovative project of "creating efficient performance, improving workflow, expanding staff skills and implementing cultural change". six Σ Its basic idea is to establish a rigorous, orderly and fact based system, and create nearly perfect processes, products and services through various process improvement and design projects to meet the needs of customers, so as to obtain greater profits. six Σ The more complete definition is: "6 Σ It is an organized parallel meso structure, which reduces the variation of organizational processes by employing improvement experts and adopting structured methods and performance measurement standards, and finally realizes the strategic objectives of the enterprise. Among them, the parallel structure is an "additional creation that operates outside the organization's daily operation mode and will not directly change the organization's daily operation mode". The meso level is an analytical level between macro and micro level, which requires both macro level organizational strategies and micro level tactics. In addition, many enterprises put 6 Σ As a strategic management method, implement 6 Σ The enterprise has a set of special process selection procedures, and the relevant decision-making power clearly belongs to the senior leaders. The reason why these enterprises do not adopt a bottom-up decision-making approach is that they believe that the selection of processes should be based on strategic needs, rather than the convenience of employees. That is, 6 Σ Provide enterprises with process selection procedures that help achieve strategic goals. At the operational level, 6 Σ Developed an improved method called "DMAIC" (define, measure, analyze, improve, and contro1), and systematically used standard quality management tools such as cause and effect table and statistical process control. In terms of performance measurement, understanding the real needs of customers is the foundation of 6e, 6 Σ A basic condition of management is to identify the key quality characteristics that play an important role in customer satisfaction, take customer needs as the goal of improving the process, and use them to guide 6 Σ Team work. Therefore, 6 Σ It is also a strategic management method that can increase customer value, and has the same goal as process reengineering. However, as a method of controlling deviations and defects, 6 Σ It still stays at the level of local improvement and lacks systematicness. Essentially, 6 Σ The improvement is the stability of the process, but if there are many unnecessary or unreasonable activities or activity sets in the process itself, even if its stability is improved, it will not bring significant performance improvement to the organization. Therefore, 6 Σ Only the solution to one aspect of the problem must be integrated and coordinated with other methods

3.lm and its limitations

lm was proposed on the basis of investigating the manufacturing system of Toyota, a Japanese automobile manufacturer. Since the LM concept was put forward, its idea has been evolving over time. [1 generally speaking, scholars mainly study LM from the following two perspectives: first, from the perspective of philosophy, they study its guiding principles and potential goals, and believe that LM is an integrated system that produces required products and services at the lowest cost, with half of the resource investment (manpower, tools, time and space, etc.) To obtain new systems for new products; The second is to summarize management practices, methods and technologies through observation from the perspective of practice. LM mainly includes just in time supply (JIT), total prevention and maintenance (TPM), total quality management (TQM) and human resource management (HRM). On the basis of summary and investigation, Shah and ward defined LM: lean manufacturing is an integrated social technological system, which aims to eliminate waste by continuously reducing changes in suppliers, customers and enterprises. After decades of development, the role of this method in helping enterprises obtain high performance and sustainable competitive advantage has been recognized in theory and practice, and is known as the "standard manufacturing mode in the 21st century" (Rinehart et al., 1997). The idea of continuous process priority embodied in LM is a magic weapon for enterprises to respond to changes in customer needs and achieve sustainable competitive advantage in strategy. Same as BPR and 6 Σ Similarly, LM is also a powerful weapon to communicate strategy and customers. LM originated in the manufacturing industry, and mainly emphasizes simplifying the process by paying attention to customers and eliminating waste in the process, so as to realize the fast and smooth operation of the production process and greatly shorten the process cycle. However, this concept that challenges the traditional mass production mode fails to pay full attention to process stability and consistency, and cannot significantly improve product quality. From this point of view, LM is also a solution to one aspect of the problem and cannot play a comprehensive role alone

4.cmm and its limitations

due to the increasingly fierce competition, now a single enterprise is unable to compete with its competitors in the whole value chain. The final product required by customers can be divided into several process segments according to their production process. Originally, an enterprise was responsible for the operation of the whole process, but now enterprises only focus on the part they are best at and outsource the business of other links of the value chain. Facing many subcontractors, enterprises lack unified standards to evaluate the ability of different subcontractors to complete the subcontracting process, which makes the cooperation between enterprises lack the basis of trust. In addition, in some specific industries (such as software industry), the quality of products cannot be clearly reflected by some characteristics of finished products, but must be evaluated and monitored in order to identify the process of product production. At this time, the heterogeneity of process characteristics between product manufacturing enterprises leads to the lack of unified standards for customers to evaluate, so it is difficult to judge the products of different enterprises

therefore, developing a set of recognized process capability evaluation standards has become an inevitable requirement of process management. The capability maturity model of software industry is developed under this background. CMM divides the process capability of software manufacturing enterprises into five levels, which are initial, repeatable, defined, managed and optimizing. Enterprises at the initial level rarely have definable processes; The second level enterprises have a basic repeatable path to track the cost, plan and function of software project management; The third level enterprises can embed the basic principles of good management and software engineering into the standard software process; The fourth level enterprises have the ability to collect the measurement details of software process and quality; In addition to the above four levels of capabilities, enterprises at the fifth level also have an atmosphere that encourages continuous improvement through quantitative feedback and control experiments. In this way, all software enterprises can find their own positioning and have comparable standards. Davenport pointed out in summing up the role of CMM that CMM provides software buyers with evidence to judge the ability and reliability of software suppliers, so as to improve the level and efficiency of cooperation, and create synergy between value chain organizations

in addition, software manufacturers can continuously improve their competitiveness according to this standard. This process evaluation idea has penetrated into other industries or

Copyright © 2011 JIN SHI