Reengineering or continuous improvement: where does the truth lie?

In the management literature of the 1990s a genuine ideological battle unfolded between two approaches to improving processes. On one side, the concept of business process reengineering (BPR), which called for “starting from a clean slate”. On the other, the Japanese philosophy of Kaizen, which championed continuous small improvements.

Thirty years on, we can draw some interim conclusions: which approach proved more effective, and in what situations each is justified.

BPR: rethink from scratch

The concept of radical reengineering, which took shape in the early 1990s, became one of the most influential management currents of the decade. Its main thesis: processes inherited from the past cannot be improved incrementally. They must be rethought radically, drawing on modern capabilities — above all, IT.

BPR assumes:

• A complete redesign of the process, not the optimization of the existing one
• The use of IT as a driver of change
• A focus on radical improvement (×10, not ×1.1) of the indicators
• A top-down approach — change is initiated by leadership

Kaizen: small steps every day

The Japanese approach, shaped at Toyota by the 1970s, argues the opposite. Processes should be improved constantly, by everyone. Each improvement should be small, testable and within reach of any worker.

Kaizen assumes:

• Many small improvements rather than rare radical ones
• Bottom-up change — every employee suggests improvements
• Constancy — not a one-off project but a daily practice
• Reliance on culture rather than on tools

Where BPR failed

Despite the wide spread of BPR in the 1990s, later research showed an alarming statistic. By various industry estimates, by the late 1990s a large share of BPR projects (a majority, by some sources) failed to meet their goals. The main causes of failure:

• Resistance to change. A radical overhaul touches the interests of many employees
• Underestimating the cultural dimension. You cannot “reprogram” an organization by decree
• Technological determinism. Betting on IT as a panacea often did not pay off
• Ignoring existing expertise. A “clean slate” discards valuable knowledge accumulated in existing processes

By the 2000s the approach’s proponents had substantially corrected their position, acknowledging the limits of purely radical reengineering.

Where Kaizen is more effective

A comparative analysis of Japanese and Western manufacturing over the past 30 years has shown a consistent advantage for the Kaizen approach in most industrial contexts:

• Better quality at comparable cost
• A lower frequency of crises and breakdowns
• Higher employee satisfaction
• The long-term accumulation of organizational knowledge

Kaizen has its limits, however: it does not produce revolutionary change and is poorly suited to situations that require rapid adaptation to new technological paradigms.

The modern synthesis

Mature BPM practice of the 2020s synthesizes both approaches. Radical change (BPR) is applied in response to strategic shifts: digital transformation, entering new markets, fundamental regulatory change. Between such “waves” processes are maintained and improved through constant Kaizen.

This synthesis is reflected in modern BPM systems: they support both major releases of process models (the BPR cycle) and micro-changes through A/B testing of execution variants (the Kaizen cycle).

What to choose

A few heuristics for the decision:

• A radically outdated process → BPR
• A strategic transformation → BPR
• A well-working process with room to improve → Kaizen
• A mature organization with a strong operational culture → Kaizen
• A crisis that requires fast results → BPR
• Long-term operational excellence → Kaizen

And above all — never confuse radicalism for its own sake with a real need for change.