9.1.1. Introduction

Although BPR is often associated with reducing or refocusing activities or other changes, this concept actually focuses on the notions of:

• – new working methods, in terms of operations content but also the human aspect;
• – value-added flow and sustainability;
• – organizational objectives in production, logistics, decision-making processes and adaptivity.

This approach often increases product quality or customer satisfaction by a factor of 10 or 100, as while respecting the principles developed in this chapter. We will first look at BPR with a “conventional” view to highlight its essential characteristics. The technologies used in BPR are based on an analytical and methodical approach. Indeed, any profound modification of an organization aims to maximize the result but is never without risks: it is therefore a matter of reducing and controlling these risks. These technologies make it possible to review several key aspects and elements of an organization such as:

• – the culture of Success (Leadership Involvement);
• – Risk and Change Management (Championship Management);
• – the adaptation of the Organizational Structures or the Production System;
• – the adaptation of Quality and Performance Measurement Systems;
• – the adaptation of Human Resources and their Continuous Training in new technologies;
• – the adaptation of Information Systems and their Architecture;
• – communication in the company; the Conduct and Evaluation of Cultural Changes and the State of Mind;
• – the Trend Adaptation to new Sustainability Constraints.

On a practical level, we will endeavor to apply some simple rules of conduct to recognize:

• – The controlled approach. Although the approach is global, open and described by a general scheme, it is often done successively, i.e. by attacking parts of the process, with well-targeted objectives. This allows for better acceptance by staff at all levels.
• – The global approach. Information Systems are always included in the BPR concept, because any process is by definition the integration of several flows (also called “the flows”), such as:
  • - product, material, energy and component flows;
  • - financial flows;
  • - information and knowledge flows (including know-how and expertise);
  • - the flows of actors (various resources, employees, customers, users, etc.);
  • - the new requirements of society and the environment.
• – In traditional BPR approaches, sub-processes such as Knowledge Management, Customer Support and Production, all supported by Information Systems, will be reorganized. To solve problems, it is often found in the field that significant investments are made by implementing sophisticated IT systems, yet without first reviewing the information required by critical processes, without structuring it or the data processing itself, without identifying which of the information is critical and how to process it differently, etc. However, we now know that complexity control is linked to interactions, and exchanges of actions and information between entities. This point is therefore key in complexity engineering.
• – The integrated horizontal approach. The involvement of the management and the leaders is a central element: they must acquire new skills, motivate and train staff, and support cultural and organizational changes. Employees, for their part, must be assured that they are the key elements of this transformation, that they are involved and that they can be proud of it. A BPR conduct is therefore based on the motivation and cooperation of all the shareholders: the staff, human resources and the overall external resources involved or constraints; BPR must be monitored with the greatest attention by the entire company’s hierarchy as the “model” to be followed.

Challenges therefore require constant communication with employees, the management line, and partners, plus at all levels. BPR is also about allocating the necessary resources and effort to the analysis and redesign activity to solve the transformation challenge.

However, taking complexity into account leads us to review the methodology somewhat. Indeed, the actions undertaken will have to take into account the causal factors of complexity. Depending on whether we want more or less reactivity or self-organizational skills, we will focus on interactions and communication (nature and importance of exchanges, etc.), and therefore on the very structure and architecture of the organization.

9.1.2. The approach and the initial conditions

It shall be said process reengineering responds to a need to improve existing processes, with the intention to increase the quality and also the performance of a process. In the context of this book, the complexity issue arises, hence control and the control of the system itself. For this reason, it is necessary that you use approaches that are widely used in the industry and adapt them to your own context. So we need to use common sense. Whatever the methodology used and the goals pursued, the reengineering process involves a number of points that must be remembered.

1. 1) First, the common points and the basic rules are to:
   1. i) identify the common needs of users in an open world and the customer base (notion of scale) involved in this operation;
   2. ii) coordinate the research and development of goods and services. This is essential for the success of the company’s objectives, whatever the business model chosen;
   3. iii) distribute production and marketing to regional and national centers, with their own management methods and resources (periodic comparative studies);
   4. iv) keep head office and strategic management in a single location;
   5. v) allow distributed subsidiaries or centers to develop and adapt their own products and systems; encourage local users to support global projects;
   6. vi) always control and manage financial resources!;
   7. vii) communicate! Where consistency and reliability are the rules; where network architectures of large database (DB) servers (such as a national value-added network) or local specific and autonomous platforms of their own are often valid.
2. 2) Then say that “there is no point in automating a process” as is!

   Indeed, it is common belief that when faced with a problem, using advanced technology will solve everything. This concerns, of course, and for example, IT or robotics (technical or administrative). But these technologies only speed up a process, or solve a complicated algorithm more easily. We have been involved in a large aerospace environment where one dominant motto was to straight design a robot for a highly complex process at hand, despite the arduous process complexity. It took us an entire method design workshop to circumvent a management fixation towards a given robot and, thanks to the conceptual results obtained, show the feasibility of a series of different redesigns opening up entire new engineering avenues with new value. According to the saying, “Garbage in ➔ Garbage out”…Faster and faster is not a solution.

3. 3) In order to become flexible and responsive, it is necessary to eliminate the superfluous! So, focus on added value and what is essential. It is a question of setting up lean systems.
4. 4) In the face of complexity, and with reference to the notion of the Latin word “complexus” understood as a sequence, structural problems must be addressed. If this form of complexity is to be reduced, it becomes essential to simplify the process. It becomes therefore the process of reducing the number of nodes in a graph, in order to remove possible feedback loops; reducing the connectivity of the graph, i.e. the number of interactions; and ultimately, reducing the number of graph circuits between heterogeneous components of the complex system. Indeed, no system can support too many connections. Beyond a connectivity of K3, performance collapses and instability increase. This actually comes contrary to what most ecologists believe, “too much diversity harms (diversity) ”. Thus, we are faced with a limit – quickly reached – on the development of networks, on their architecture, and just as much with a limit on the networking of skills – think of communities of practice, focus groups and the expression of citizens through networks.
5. 5) As noted above, issues related to product flow and information flow need to be addressed differently. It is necessary to distinguish clearly between phenomena of subordination (such as those encountered in trees) and places of power (selection, filtering, information referral and decisions). This distinction is important in order to organize counter-powers rather than reject them on the basis of false principles of “good relations” or “equality of principles”. We are therefore committed to promoting the autonomy of each hierarchical level (decentralization, subsidiarity), around stable nuclei on which to base ourselves validly and between which to organize the circulation of information.
6. 6) Move towards coordinated autonomy. As we know well, coordination costs increase when the company moves from systems with local characteristics to regional and then global systems. Hence the need, despite the relatively low costs of data management and transaction today, to limit oneself to key systems leaving the responsibility for non-critical systems to local actors or agents. For the same reason, the role of headquarters will be reduced (less centralization) and the distribution and dispersion of experts will be encouraged to better meet local needs – at minimal costs.
7. 7) This is why, and as we can see around us on a physical level, the outsourcing of certain tasks that are part of the process, combined with the relocation of sub-processes, makes it possible to reduce the number of nodes and interactions that must be integrated into production systems. Similarly, client–supplier contracts, which define the exchange of information and decisions between two communicating partners, and which are established on this occasion, will result in a reduction and simplification of communications between agents. Here again, it is a question of eliminating, but also of organizing!
8. 8) As practitioners, the above-mentioned main rules for conducting BPR must be explained and owned by everyone, to avoid confused action plans, bad priorities, and to develop synergy. Quite often, the process in use is far better known by the user in charge of a process, even in more depth, rather than by an external observer: advisers are not purchasers!

9.1.3. The RECOS reengineering methodology

The implementation of new management rules and paradigm shifts involve a number of constraints and working methods that we will now describe. The methodology implemented, called RECOS (REengineering of COmplex Systems) consists of 10 steps. It includes a subset of steps specific to the traditional BPR approach, and also incorporates new concepts underlying complexity that are the subject of this book. One of the difficulties in exposing RECOS comes from the need to have previously created a common and appropriate theoretical framework for the method.

The RECOS method consists of 10 key steps, as follows.

1. 1) Strategic Vision or direction. This means being ambitious, realistic, coherent, measurable and focused on the new organization that is to be put in place. Such a business strategy must be followed by an operational strategy.
2. 2) Identify and define the different Business Processes (BP). In general, whatever the level of scale, 7 are identified (the reader should refer here to the previous chapter on Fractal Factory). What is important now is not to link the model or structure of the organization with the way business is done and managed. The What and How must be kept methodologically separate.

   It should be recalled here that time management is crucial. Indeed, complexity is a dynamic phenomenon, and changes over time are the most difficult to understand. As we have always been told, these phenomena are unpredictable, which forces us to react over very short horizons.

3. 3) In the system, it is now necessary to identify key functions or entities, i.e. those that support the company’s crucial and strategic functions. Study the centralized coordination system while transforming these functions and entities into network systems (which may correspond to transnational systems within a framework of companies).

   This coordination is carried out using meta-rules whose purpose is to allow the development of local patches or autonomous and coherent entities. The resulting core is a fixed one, in the sense that it constitutes a stable set of polyvalent entities. The purpose of this step is therefore to find the right level of globality.

4. 4) Cut and reduce keeping only the processes related to the core business. In this stage, few revolutionary methods and radical upheavals (which require time and represent costs) are used. In sub-BPs (Business Processes), a technique of the “Kaisen” type will therefore be used, which constitutes a gradual approach, making it possible to, for example, keep a clear and precise vision of global or transnational functions, to refocus on added value, etc. The aim is to eliminate “fat” (lean system concept).

   If this is not possible, then efforts must be made to find the right subsidiary level in coherence. It is indeed important to maintain meaning, unity and coherence in each and every BP.

5. 5) Any complex system is based on the exploration and exploitation of dynamic interactions, which not only link entities into a “whole” but also form a coherent entity (indeed, an interaction can modify and govern exchanges following a transformation and with well-defined protocols). The question is who communicates with what and how. Then it is a case of defining the elements and the expected results of this sociability. We therefore favor here the logic of cooperation that leads to what is called collective intelligence. It will also be possible to put in place, as we have already seen, strategies for comperation or coopetition.
6. 6) The information problem. The notion of interaction that we have just seen is therefore essential. Even essential over that of function or operation within a process. Meaning that interactions – i.e. the exchange of messages and information, in the broadest sense of the term – are the key to the proper functioning and control of a complex system. Attention should therefore be paid to communication protocols, feedback loops, interactions between local and global levels, nonlinearity in the dissemination or propagation of information, etc.
7. 7) The crucial step we describe here is called “integrative complexity”. We now wish, using simulators and the commonly available computing power, to study in greater depth the dynamics of the system or organization being redesigned. The aim is to understand the system’s behavior, to understand how to control the system, provided it is controllable, and how to design the system. In this seventh phase, a wide variety of skills and disciplines are used, ranging from management sciences to mathematics, production or physics, etc. At this stage, the cardinality of the network, its connectivity and the protocols to be used will be determined.
8. 8) Change management. As a result, it will now be necessary to adapt, define and implement the new methods. The problem of transitioning is always complex: it is therefore necessary to prepare people, explain the whys and the wherefores, their specific contribution, the benefits for each and every one, and the adaptation measures (the concern to better adhere and communicate). Have the courage, will and tenacity to effectively remove unnecessary tasks and positions first, and then reorient employees and managers who resist or refuse change.

   Any change should be global in scope, and require a general mobilization. But the more we globalize, the more inertia gets important and change necessarily consumes time. The local and the global are inseparable because while the complex structure of a system is defined at the local level, the global imposes constraints and methods at the local level, while local agents are the entities that bring about an order at all.

9. 9) We have put forward the notion of diversity. However, when managing change, this diversity (including the complementarity of intelligences, plus the wealth that results from it) can pose problems of adherence and diffusion. New concepts will be used to combat local barriers. One of them is Cooptation (the integration of the opposition into the process of designing and implementing solutions) without surrendering control over the direction and nature of change. Consensus techniques (and, as we have already pointed out, not necessarily compromise, which alters interactions) will also be used. However, there will be no derogation on the timing of BPR operations. Indeed, and in order to never lose control of time, the planning of operations must remain “aggressive”.
10. 10) Efficiency remains based on the “sale” of solutions, as well as on agreements about compromises, consensus, etc. This obviously raises the problem of specific or specialized skills and resources that become difficult to reuse or reassign. However, as seen previously, let us note that we are in complex systems where autonomy is based on multidisciplinarity. Here, we only have to face a problem of motivation and conviction – certainly not a too easy task – yet which falls under the direct responsibility of management (and which includes the usual distinction between effectiveness and efficiency).

Thus, the success of such a BPR-based reengineering approach in complex environments will lead to implementing new paradigms, these resulting mainly in a new organization that is even more effective, efficient, competitive, sustainable and profitable.

9.2.1. Modeling techniques and tools

An important problem of the process remains to be addressed: while the models used to study and redesign a process are hopefully very useful, they are inherently simplified and incomplete. The fact is when trying to get highly complete models, they tend to generate more noise than relevant information. These models are therefore limited and what counts, when studying the complexity of a system, is to explain its aims, its trends, in short, to predict the nature of certain behaviors and to set priorities. Therefore, when developing a model, attention should be paid to the following points:

9.2.2. Role and contribution of IT in BPR

The above-mentioned considerations are not intended to reduce the role and benefits of IT but to highlight the purpose of IT tools, of modeling techniques, and finally introduce Information Systems concepts in our so-called complex organizations. In this section, we will specifically address artificial intelligence since AI is just considered as an enabling technology.

First, computer science arose from the needs encountered in the computing world, then was aimed at determining solutions to operational or scientific research problems. Gradually, the tools and methods have been extended to all the areas of activity that affect us. Thus, the resulting information systems have become omnipresent; they now constitute a means of controlling operational systems and information flows, physical flows and workflows. Finally, they are at the root of changes in the organization, reshaping structures, the size and functioning of complex organizations.

The range of changes (or generations of innovation) brought about by information technologies extends over four orders:

1. 1) The automation of procedures. Here, it is simply a matter of using the computer and associated computer programs to make calculations and speed up routine tasks. This translates into greater effectiveness and efficiency in basic operations. This order is typically implemented first; to simplify, we can say that it is the order of productivity.
2. 2) The rationalization of procedures. Continuous and progressive process improvements are being made here. For example, a previous simulation in an industrial system or bank will allow us to detect design anomalies in the product, service or process; we will also identify bottlenecks. The engineering work then consists of defining the causes of these anomalies and the associated action plan, correcting them, and verifying and validating that the action has been successful. This already solves a quality or performance problem at process level. As part of rationalizing a procedure, an operational function, the functioning of a process or working methods can all be continuously improved. This order is usually implemented in second place; to simplify, we will say that it is the order of reactivity.
3. 3) Process reengineering. In this third case, the power of modeling and information processing tools is used to represent and analyze an entire process. Here, AI may be used to automate the diagnosis of the situation, considering that AI may exploit lots of data (through so-called “Big Data”) and to determine the causes and the actions to be performed in a process that is deviant. At this stage, it is possible to study the very structure of the process, to identify its weaknesses and strengths, and to simplify it (see the “lean process”) in order to focus on its essential and value-added aspects. Then, the proposals for structural change should be validated, applied and possibly revised for greater effectiveness and efficiency. We thus have a more open ambition and vision than in the previous approach. This order is implemented in the third place; to simplify, we can say that it carries the full power of a company’s innovation approach.
4. 4) However, in the last two steps, in a way it is a matter of automating the spirit behind SMED or KENZEN techniques. We are now threading a continuous improvement process, yet, still subject to relatively stable conditions and environment. This highly efficient approach enables us to solve about 50% of the initial causes of deviation.
5. 5) Furthermore, as seen before, in complex systems we are confronted with totally different situations compared to classical ones. This leads us to consider radical methods for rethinking the nature of business and the organization. Now is the time for what is called a real “paradigm shift”. In this situation, the basic mechanisms of a process are modified and totally different strategies are adopted: for example, the elimination of the notion of scheduling and its substitution by that of automatic process reconfiguration. Or the replacement of a centralized decision-making and procurement system by a decentralized system based on auctions, etc. Thus, when dealing with complex behaviors, with properties that are totally different from those found in traditional systems, the way of understanding them is also totally different. Mind the old mindset! Indeed, the observed behaviors are no longer manageable, controllable or scalable using standard techniques, and we are therefore bound to using innovative and unusual approaches and structures that are otherwise radically opposed. Now is the time for a fourth order implemented after the first three; to simplify, we will say that it carries the full power of a complex approach to business innovation.

These process improvement or redesign activities involve closely correlated risks and benefits [LAU 01]. Indeed, two deficiencies regularly populate conventional systems:

• – Most often, process rationalization and automation calls for incremental strategies based on the continuous improvement of a controlled process. In this first approach above, the risks involved are generally low and the benefits modest. Being mainly due to the fact that the actions undertaken are local and that the agents, functions or cells are but considered independent! Very often a wrong hypothesis, given the interconnections and the nonlinear feedback loops that modify the global behavior of the system. If their influences are low, the continuity of the process can be ensured and the impact remains relatively low. But a negligible effect can never be considered an “independence”.
• – Faster, more radical and far-reaching changes such as traditional reengineering or paradigm shift carry a high risk of failure because they still require everyone’s involvement and support, while they affect the entire structure of the organization, and time and again weaken the company during its transition phase. However, let us reckon that they normally bring an important direct benefit to this system.

In a complex system, the prevailing logic stands no longer the same as in a non-complex system: it is about running a community of agents. They do interact, i.e. they exert a mutual influence on their close neighbors. The generated influences are positive or negative, linear or nonlinear, and will spawn complex behaviors such as chaotic or SIC (Sensitivity to Initial Conditions). Thus, even a minor change that has been introduced at local level (e.g. the easing of a bottleneck at a given local workstation) may have an unpredictable effect on the whole system, often known as the pumping phenomenon. By pumping we mean a resonance effect which amplifies and propagates some anomalies along the supply chain of a manufacturing production line. This was demonstrated by simulation, in the DAPS model of an enterprise modeling [MAS 99, MAS 02]. Pumping becomes a critical seed of deviance in any “sensitive” dynamic system.

Even though the following remark may sound trivial at this stage of the discussion, it should be stressed that the complete reconfiguration of a production system in the broad sense may not be followed by any effect if the working methods are left unchanged. In such a situation, working conditions have changed, but not the links and relationships between employees, resulting in the superposition of two operational systems: one official and the other underlying – what a dissonant mixture lurking for yet unknown failures.