Business Process Reengineering Methodology Research Articles

Business process re-engineering and strategic change

This article draws upon a programme of work commissioned and funded by the Commission of the European Communities. It was undertaken as an element of the COBRA (constraints and opportunities in business restructuring—an analysis) project which has involved a pan-European study of business process re-engineering (BPR) experience and practice. It presents some summary findings relating to the extent to which BPR is being used as a vehicle of strategic change. Most of the BPR exercises examined by members of the COBRA team were of a process ‘simplification’ rather than ‘re-engineering’ variety and were being undertaken to achieve medium-term cost and time savings rather than longer term and strategic benefits. The approaches to BPR adopted by many organizations will not necessarily lead to BPR methodologies being applied to areas and activities of strategic significance. Many of the methodologies appear designed to secure incremental improvements in existing processes rather than achieve fundamental change.

Culture-Sensitive, Strategy-Level Reengineering

The application of business process reengineering (BPR) in organizations has met with more failures than successes. It is therefore instructive to conduct an analysis of BPR failures, the results of which may be used to refine and adapt BPR methodologies. We review some failures analysis work in this paper, and link the analysis with issues pertaining to culture and the level of application of BPR to the business. We present ReVision, a BPR methodology in routine use that places strong emphasis on culture sensitivity and applying reengineering at the level of business strategy.

Systems and reengineering: Relating the reengineering paradigm to systems methodologies

Recently the topic of business process reengineering (BPR) has emerged to prominence in a number of guises, e.g. Hammer and Champy (1993). BPR is accepted here as containing a core paradigm with the potential to mobilize and channel change to secure radical improvements in organizational performance. This is contrasted with Continuous Improvement methods which deliver gradual improvements. In this paper BPR is conceputalised as an approach comprised of an emerging group of systems methodologies. These are related to other approaches and methodologies using the Total Systems Intervention framework of Flood and Jackson (1991). In keeping with the framework the main assumptions and metaphors that underlie the BPR literature are examined. BPR methodologies are characterised as rooted mainly in the hard systems approach with the machine metaphor dominating. The possibility is discussed of BPR methodologies based around other than hard system approaches.

A New Methodology For Business Process Re-Engineering

AbstractThis paper describes a new methodology for Business Process Reengineering. It builds on the experiences of organisations who have reengineered. It also considers existing methodologies, and the experience of the author and some of his colleagues who have played a central role in a major reengineering project within British Telecommunications plc (BT). Though all “reengineering” consultancies undoubtably have methodologies for BPR, this paper reports an academically rigorous methodology which builds on the reported experiences of organisations, and views of leaders in the reengineering field.

Current issues in business process re‐engineering

Presents the results of empirical research into issues faced by 25 companies undertaking business process re‐engineering (BPR) programmes. The research team sought to understand the BPR phenomenon through visits to 21 leading practitioners and four in‐depth case studies. The research indicated that six key issues affect the way in which BPR programmes are carried out, namely the nature of the change proposed (radical or incremental), the performance measures applied during the programme, the impact of information technology, the impact of human factors, the presence or absence of a process architecture and the link between BPR and strategy. The outcome of this research has implications for both practitioners and researchers. Where practitioners are concerned, the conventional, step‐by‐step BPR methodology should be amended to take into account these six issues more fully. For researchers there is a need for substantial research into good practice in BPR in each of the six areas.