Business Process Reengineering Literature Research Articles

Application of formal methods to modelling and analysis aspects of business process reengineering

PurposeBusiness process (BP) reengineering is defined as reinventing BPs either structurally or technically to achieve dramatic improvements in performance. In any business process reengineering (BPR) project, process modeling is used to reason about problems found in existing (as-is) process and helps to design target (to-be) process. BP model notation is a widely accepted standard for process modeling. “Expressiveness” and “missing formal semantics” are two problems reported to its modeling practices. In existing studies, solutions to these problems are also proposed but still have certain limitations. The paper aims to discuss this issue.Design/methodology/approachIn proposed methodology, a meta-model is formally defined that is composed of commonly used modeling elements and their well-formedness rules to check for syntactic and structural correctness of process models. Proposed solution also check semantics of process models and allows to compare as-is and to-be process models for gap identification which is another important aspect of BPR. To achieve the first goal, Z specification is used to provide formal specifications of modeling constructs and their rules and Z3 (an SMT solver) is used for comparisons and verifying properties.FindingsProposed method addresses both “expressiveness” and “missing formal semantics” of BPR models. The results of its evaluation clearly indicate that using formally specified meta-model, BPR model is syntactically and structurally correct. Moreover, formal modeling of BPs in Z3 helped to compare processes and to check control flow properties.Research limitations/implicationsAlthough the proposed method is tested on an example that is widely used in BPR literature, the example is only covering modeling elements which are part of the proposed subset and are reported in literature as frequently used modeling elements. A separate detailed study is required to test it on more complex systems.Practical implicationsSpecifying process models using Z specification and Z3 solver requires certain expertise.Originality/valueThe proposed method adds value to BPR body of knowledge as it proposes a method to ensure structural and syntactic correctness of models, highlighting the importance of verifying run time properties and providing a direction toward comparing process models for gap analysis.

PRISM-Process Reengineering Integrated Spiral Model: An Agile Approach to Business Process Reengineering (BPR)

Over the past two decades, business process reengineering (BPR) has become a popular approach to improve theefficiency and effectiveness of organizations. An examination of relevant BPR literature reveals that availableBPR models that have been widely in use have some serious limitations and fail to take into considerationhuman factors and change management aspects. Both academic researchers and industrial practitioners haveacknowledged the existence of this theoretical gap. This article proposes a BPR model that is named processreengineering integrated spiral model (PRISM). PRISM is a systematic agile model that would improve thechances for organizations to successfully carry out BPR initiatives and projects.

Important factors for success in hospital BPR project phases

Business process reengineering (BPR) is touted in the literature as the dramatic improvements necessary for competitiveness, but in practice there are many unsuccessful cases. A more systematic and rigorous factor-assessment deemed important to each BPR phase and overall project success is needed. This paper aims to assess the extent to which proposed success factors in a hospital contribute to each BPR phase's success.. Based on the relevant literature, desirable results from each project phase were defined. Overall project success was defined as the benefits hospital managers derive from BPR according to manager opinions. A total of 192 hospital administrators shared their last BPR experience, where changes were operational for at least one year. Recommendations are made for hospital managers to focus attention and resources on factors important to BPR success. Hospital managers are not emphasizing the most important activities and tasks recommended in the BPR literature, such as changes to customer/market related business processes, every business activity's value-added element and applying the right innovative technology. Based on the whole findings, top managers should not engage BPR before ensuring that important success factors are present. While many researchers identified and/or tested factors important to BPR success, this is the first study to explore BPR success factors' importance to each project phase, from inception to overall project success assessment phase.

Development and validation of business process reengineering (BPR) variables: a survey research in Slovenian companies

Business Process Reengineering (BPR) literature is based primarily on case studies and there is a lack of rigorous wide-ranging empirical research covering all its aspects. This paper presents the results of a survey research carried out in 73 medium and large-sized Slovenian manufacturing companies. Seven crucial areas were identified based on a synthesis of BPR literature, which must be practised to achieve effective process reengineering: management commitment, education & training, team work, BPR project characteristics, employee cooperation, information technology support, and levers & results. Variables have been constructed within these areas, using Likert scales, and statistical validity and reliability analyses. These developed variables can be important both for understanding BPR and in terms of the descriptive statistics, also reported in this paper. What emerges is the crucial importance of process orientation, goal setting, and top management commitment. Furthermore, these variables can be helpful for further research aimed at investigating BPR and its linkages with other areas, such as strategy, performance measurement, etc.

Remember Re‐engineering? The Rhetorical Appeal of a Managerial Salvation Device

This paper subjects a contemporary managerial doctrine, business process re‐engineering (BPR), to rhetorical scrutiny. Finding analytical inspiration from the writings of the American literary critic Kenneth Burke and adopting an anthropological attitude towards ‘history’, it seeks to demystify the appeal of BPR rhetoric as represented in various published and unpublished texts. The analysis makes extensive use of ‘sacred’ motifs in order to gain ‘perspective through incongruity’ and expose the secular motives at work in BPR literature. An analogy is drawn between ethnographic examples of ‘amnesia’ drawn from the author's study of a computer installation and ‘amnesia writ large’ through BPR. On the basis of this comparison, it is suggested that BPR can be read as offering cathartic absolution of the collective guilt associated with information technology mismanagement. Any ‘doubts’ that a managerial public may be harbouring are rhetorically harnessed by BPR protagonists in their attempts to acquire secular converts. The popularity of BPR may now be on the decline but there will be other similarly instrumental agendas to replace it in the future to which students of management need to be alert.

Field testing of the proposed predictors of BPR success in manufacturing firms

Abstract Business Process Reengineering (BPR) has been touted as necessary for dramatic improvements in organizational competitiveness. In practice, there have been successful and unsuccessful cases; thus, there is a need for systematic and rigorous assessment of the factors deemed important to project success. This paper defines success in three ways: goals and objectives accomplished by the project, benefits derived from the project, and the project's impact on company performance. Based on survey results, recommendations are made on the factors that are important to success and that minimize the risk of failure. Contact persons at the companies participating in this study were internal auditing directors and comptrollers (collectively called IAs here). Questionnaires were mailed to the IAs of 586 randomly selected manufacturing organizations. The usable sample of 135 questionnaires represented a 22% response rate. In general, the surveys showed that organizations are not emphasizing some of the most important activities and task recommended in the BPR literature, such as changes to customer/market-related business processes, the value-added element of every business activity, and applying the right innovative technology. Based on the findings as a whole, top managers should not engage in BPR before ensuring the presence of the important success factors. While the findings are based on manufacturing companies, the results may be generalizable to other industrial sectors.

Empirically testing the antecedents of BPR success

Business Process Reengineering (BPR) has been touted by many as dramatic improvements necessary for organization competitiveness, but in practice there are many unsuccessful cases. Thus, there is need for a more systematic and rigorous assessment of the factors deemed important to project success. That is the main objective of this study. In this case, success has been defined in three different ways: goals and objectives accomplished by the project, benefits derived from the project, and its impact on company performance. Based on the results, recommendations are made for managers to focus attention and resources on factors important to success, and to proceed in a fashion which minimizes the risk of failure. The point of entry into the companies participating in this study were internal auditing directors and comptrollers (IAs). The membership list for a national professional association was the original source. Questionnaires were mailed to the IAs of 1200 randomly selected organizations. The usable sample of 324 questionnaires represent a 27% response rate. In general, organizations are not emphasizing some of the most important activities and tasks recommended in the BPR literature, such as changes to customer/market related business processes, the value-added element of every business activity, and applying the right innovative technology. Based on the findings as a whole, it behooves top managers not to engage in BPR before ensuring the presence of the success factors found to be important.

What killed BPR? Some evidence from the literature

Throughout the first half of the 1990s business process re‐engineering (BPR) was one of the most eagerly embraced management techniques, although often with results that were far from satisfactory. This tended to reinforce people’s suspicions of information technology since IT is a key enabling agent, if not the driver, for BPR. The aim of this study was to provide literary evidence and reasons for the current widespread dissatisfaction with BPR. Using the keyword business process re‐engineering/re‐engineering, a total of 2,019 article abstracts were collected that spanned the period from January 1990 to December 1995, inclusive. The literature was analysed for 18 themes, six article types and 32 business areas, in addition to geographical origin, author origin, date, etc. The analysis showed that 97.8 per cent of the BPR literature has been written since the beginning of 1993, since which time there has been an explosive growth in the number of publications. However, a recent sharp downturn in the number of articles may be a sign that BPR is maturing, if not reaching the end of it useful life‐cycle. The almost complete absence of research articles to underpin BPR is a distinctive feature of the literature. Thus, opportunities for researchers, as well as hitherto untapped opportunities for consulting practitioners, are clearly identified. Concludes that, while BPR may not have suffered a sudden fatality, it is the victim of neglect in some critical areas of life support.

Business process re-engineering—A discredited vocabulary?

Business process re-engineering (BPR) literature has demonstrated over the past 5 years how significant is the potential of BPR in keeping businesses competitive. However, a tremendous variation in the vocabulary used in the literature has blurred the meaning of re-engineering and a high level of misconception, misunderstanding, and misinterpretation has been identified during an investigation at three British and three Brazilian companies. Although, the spoken languages in the two countries are completely distinct, the root of the problems concerning BPR are exactly the same. Directors, managers, workers, and the authors of BPR literature all seem to be working with completely different mind sets. The evidence reported in this paper suggests that the credibility of BPR as a management change tool is becoming weaker, and if no urgent action taken to unify vocabulary and definition, then BPR is predestined to become another has-been theory in the history of management.

Empirically assessing the impact of business process reengineering on manufacturing firms

While the BPR (Business Process Reengineering) concept is conceptually appealing, in pratice there are many unsuccessful cases. This study aimed to exhaustively identify and rate: the importance of factors proposed as important for successfully implementing BPR projects in organizations; the extent to which various problems and benefits are being encountered; the extent to which proposed BPR objectives are being included in project plans and are actually being derived; and the impact of BPR projects on specific business processes and on the organization as a whole. Several basic hypotheses regarding the BPR implementation process were tested. Last, based on the results, recommendations are made for managers to focus attention and resources on factors important to success, and to proceed in a fashion which minimizes the risk of failure. In general, organizations are not emphasizing some of the most important activies and tasks recommended in the BPR literature, such as changes to customer/market related business processes, the value-added element of every business activity, and others. On the average, the most commonly encountered problems while implementing BPR seem to be very difficult to address in pratice: making business mistakes under pressure to produce quick results, implementation difficulties due to communication barriers between company sub-units, the unexpected size of the required BPR effort, its disruption to business operations, and others. Based on the findings as a whole, it behooves top managers to engage in BPR projects only as a controlled experiment to strategically reposition the organization.

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.