presented by Hammer and Champy (1994): fundamental, radical and drastic.
The drastic and rapid changes that reengineering presupposes do not consider, in a process of change, the current situation of a given company, without considering or considering any kind of participation by the people, contrary to the perspective of sociotechnical change. This is one of the possible criticisms of reengineering. The fact that people do not participate in the process, implies that the exercise of power functions as in a marketing campaign: it is necessary to sell the idea to employees, or that for this emotional manipulation is absolutely necessary. Therefore, the reengineering leader must also be a reengineering fundamentalist.
Other critics to this process and …show more content…
All of these criticisms of reengineering may explain the failures of implementing reengineering in some cases. However, the real reasons for these failures have yet to be explained, since in other cases the results were positive, with reengineering playing a decisive role in improving the competitiveness of the companies that applied it. Hammer and Champy (1994) justifies eventual failures with a simple reason, such as “companies did not know how to apply the principles of reengineering”.
Analysing EDP’s history of years of investment in the construction of a national electricity network with capacity to cover the whole country. These years of investment, allied to the fact that the company is in fact monopolistic, has made the organization never feel the need to communicate with customers or even with employees. Perhaps this lack of communication explains, to some extent, an image of silence or inefficiency of the company. Therefore, in this study the focus is in sales and communication with the customer with the help of value proposition
The drastic and rapid changes that reengineering presupposes do not consider, in a process of change, the current situation of a given company, without considering or considering any kind of participation by the people, contrary to the perspective of sociotechnical change. This is one of the possible criticisms of reengineering. The fact that people do not participate in the process, implies that the exercise of power functions as in a marketing campaign: it is necessary to sell the idea to employees, or that for this emotional manipulation is absolutely necessary. Therefore, the reengineering leader must also be a reengineering fundamentalist.
Other critics to this process and …show more content…
All of these criticisms of reengineering may explain the failures of implementing reengineering in some cases. However, the real reasons for these failures have yet to be explained, since in other cases the results were positive, with reengineering playing a decisive role in improving the competitiveness of the companies that applied it. Hammer and Champy (1994) justifies eventual failures with a simple reason, such as “companies did not know how to apply the principles of reengineering”.
Analysing EDP’s history of years of investment in the construction of a national electricity network with capacity to cover the whole country. These years of investment, allied to the fact that the company is in fact monopolistic, has made the organization never feel the need to communicate with customers or even with employees. Perhaps this lack of communication explains, to some extent, an image of silence or inefficiency of the company. Therefore, in this study the focus is in sales and communication with the customer with the help of value proposition