Mr. Twain's observation comes to mind as I reflect on a recent article entitled "A Eulogy for the Reengineering Fad." In the article, the author referred to reengineering as both a buzz word and a dying fad. Everyone, of course, is entitled to his or her opinions, but the use of such characterizations are anything but eulogistic, despite what the title of the article suggests. Perhaps "elegy" is a better word given the reference to reengineering's demise.

The difference between the right word and the almost-right word is a common error that is especially evident when words are misappropriated, either through naivete or else intentionally to promote self-serving interests. The term "reengineering" has become one of the latest victims of such word abuse. The most egregious case in point involves the use of reengineering as a malapropism for downsizing - particularly the brand of downsizing inspired by simple accounting metrics of profit and loss rather than customer-oriented process performance indices. This, of course, has opened reengineering to criticism by those who apparently mistake the misapplication of the concept for concept itself.

Those who have been involved in the training profession for a while are quite familiar with the type of semantic error just described. The whole concept of training often suffers in the minds of those who have been on the receiving end of training that was not right for the job or training that was perhaps poorly executed. While a particular training program may fail to accomplish the intended results, most of us would take issue with the notion that training (as a concept) is a buzz word or a dying fad. To suggest there is a one-size-fits-all brand of training is tantamount to claiming there is a universal rule for reengineering every process, corporation, or enterprise. It doesn't work that way - for training or reengineering.

Even when the concept is understood, reengineering, of course, is not a panacea for all that ills the organization, nor is it intended to displace strategy as some contend. I can cite numerous cases where reengineering has been successfully coupled with strategy. Furthermore, the evidence of this assertion is borne out in articles published in Planning Review, Harvard Business Review, California Management Review, and other reliable sources. It's unfortunate that some have tried to make reengineering and strategy an either/or proposition.

Strategy, I believe, should tell us something about which processes should or should not exist, and how they are to coexist as a cohesive system. When done right, reengineering then provides a framework for ensuring these processes are structured in an efficient manner to maximize their value to the customer, using whatever metric of "value" the customer deems important. I submit that most of the negatives attributed to reengineering can, in fact, be traced to a breakdown in strategy deployment coupled with an abdication of responsibility. This of course provides a convenient out. We no longer have ourselves to blame if things go wrong - we can fault the "concept."

Regardless of the antics played with semantics, the fact remains that the reengineering concept is alive and well - certainly in the sense of structuring internal processes to "grow the business" rather than simply "trim the fat." While the label may change - since a multitude of sins have been committed in the name of reengineering - the basic goals of reengineering cannot be denied so long as we live in a world where rampant change, demanding customers, and competitive pressures won't allow us to become comfortable for long with business-as-usual.

This article may be copied and disseminated if copied in whole and the following credit and contact is included with the article: