【正文】 ions were the impetus behind a Henley Management College MBA dissertation. This management summary reports on the resulting survey into anisational change techniques used by UK anisations undertaking BPR. Executive Highlights ? Most BPR anisations are making significant and wide reaching changes to their anisation in response to strategic business needs. The trend is to results oriented and more fluid structures. ? Highly centralised anisations, as epitomised in role management styles, have seen their day, but there remains a tendency to formalise the work processes through task allocation, procedures, rules and controls. ? BPR results in an average 18% reduction in staff. ? Management are emphasising the harder techniques that more overtly control staff behaviour. However, many do get their staff involved in process redesign. Many in management (middle management?) are not exhibiting the required behaviour. ? BPR and change management consultants are widely used but they do not overtly influence the choice of culture change techniques selected. Neither do staff have much influence in the choice of techniques used. ? Many improvement are being realised but the empowerment of staff is not one of them. Staff mitment appears to be the biggest concern and innovation by staff is low. Despite these findings, respondents definitely believe they can change their employee39。s 7 S Model The well known McKinsey model was used as a basis for assessing the extent to which anisations undertaking BPR are changing themselves. All the 25 anisations analysed were extensively changing 5, 6 or all 7 elements as part of their BPR project. Overall, all elements were equally receiving attention. 80% stated that their BPR programme was extensively driven by business strategy, and 88% of anisations were aiming to extensively change their shared values. These shared values, along with beliefs and assumptions, form the heart of McKinsey39。s total staff but in some case all staff were subject to the impact of BPR. Overall there was a significant shift towards low centralisation but there remains a tendency to control employee39。shake up39。 Crainer have highlighted the dysfunctional behaviour of many middle managers due to the simultaneous need exhibit the new behaviour to their own staff, before they have e to terms with the need to change their own behaviour. The result is stress due to pressure from both above and below. Influences The main reason selected for using the above techniques was to gain staff mitment (80%) followed by speed of implementation and results (52%). This latter figure is not surprising given the long duration of BPR projects (see later) and one can speculate whether lack of staff mitment (also see later) is a major reason for the long timescales. Consultants Despite the fact that 68% used consultants they were not the main source of suggestions as to which techniques to use. Just a quarter selected only consultants as choosing the techniques and another quarter selected consultants together with some other source. 13 anisations used BPR consultants and another 6 used change management consultants. Consultants representing human resources, IT, Oamp。Acquisition and use of new knowledge and skills39。cooperative team working39。customer focus39。results oriented39。acquisition and use of decision making powers39。and acceptance and use of responsibility39。empowerment39。mitment to the anisation39。clean sheet of paper39。creation of innovative ideas39。s Values and Beliefs Respondents were decidedly 39。 about whether employee39。s inner, personal feelings. No Indications Those anisations with the most extensive change did not appear to be using a greater range or number of techniques, despite the likely increase in plexity of the change. Also there were no indications that the extent of downsizing had either any negative or positive impact on employee improvements. Finally, there were no indications that consultants tended to suggest the more harder, coercive change techniques. Duration Those projects that have been underway for some time tend to report higher levels of employee improvements with the peak at the 2 year point. Thereafter, improvement levels fall away. This confirms that BPR is not a quick fix solution. The tailing off may be due to improvement being taken for granted, or it may be that longer projects have lost focus. Such effect did not appear to be linked to the number of employees impacted by the BPR project. Techniques Used Those reporting the most employee improvements were using a greater number of change techniques. Those with the top improvements were typically using 7 to 10 techniques. But the type of technique was important. Those using over 3 hard techniques reported 5 or more Lots of improvements pared to those only using on average hard techniques who were only reporting 5 or more Some improvements or even less. But those declaring most improvement were using a range of both hard and soft techniques. This suggests that the wide ranging anisational impact of BPR creates a plex change situation that needs a wide range of techniques. Hard techniques are known to provide a more immediate employee response. Softer techniques address the inner values and beliefs, which although they take longer to have affect, can have a more fundamental and enduring impact on employee39。bandwagon39。empowerment39。teamworking39。s 7 S model, it is shown that full BPR has significant impact on an anisation, particularly in terms of its culture. A further liturature review highlights the plex and widely varying views of what culture is. A model proposed by Rousseau is used to describe culture39。s views on culture change within the context of BPR. Based on this preliminary research, the tentative f