Business Process Re-engineering
. Introduction
The concept of the radical restructuring of business processes was first coined "reengineering" by Michael Hammer in a 1990 Harvard Business Review article. However, this original definition evolved by different authors in different publications:
Accoding to Hammer and Champy, 1993 the fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of business processes to achieve dramatic improvement in critical, contemporary measures of performance, such as cost, quality, service and speed. (Dixon et al., 1994) defined Reengineering as "radical or breakthrough change in a business process. Reengineered process designs seek dramatic orders of magnitude, as distinguished from incremental improvements in business value"
Again (Lowenthal, 1994) described reengineering as the fundamental rethinking and redesign of operating processes and organizational structure, focused on the organization's core competencies, to achieve dramatic improvements in organizational performance
Although these definitions appear somewhat varied, common elements, including the words fundamental, radical, dramatic and process, appear in virtually all generally accepted definitions of reengineering. Hammer (1995), in an effort to further define reengineering, argues that any definition of reengineering must include these four terms: fundamental, radical, dramatic and process
The practice of reengineering has grown as well. A recent survey of over 500 senior executives revealed that 41 percent were reengineering their companies. A separate study found as many as 88 percent of large corporations involved in reengineering (Bashein et al., 1994; Cavanaugh, 1994). Indeed, well-known and diverse companies such as Rubbermaid, Choice Hotels, Texas Instruments, Texaco USA, Harley Davidson, Public Service Electric & Gas, and General Electric have all undertaken reengineering efforts within the recent past. (Example 1)
2. Fundamental reengineering questions
In addition to the numerous activities which purportedly constitute reengineering, Hammer and Champy (1993) contend there are two fundamental questions critical to sincere involvement in the reengineering process:
* Why do we do what we do?
* Why do we do it the way we do it?
These two questions imply that the asking organization's management is looking deeply inward, and therefore is questioning the basic nature and processes of the organization. Without the co-existence of these fundamental questions, the activities outlined previously are just that - activities. Only when these activities are accompanied by the asking of the two fundamental questions can an organization successfully reengineer its processes.
3. Process changes
Hammer and Champy's business process redesign activities suggest that many basic business processes must undergo change during reengineering and, by definition, this change must be radical. A number of researchers have identified distinct processes needing change. Taken together, the authors found that there are 21 distinct business processes directly or indirectly impacting the marketing function which may experience radical change as a result of reengineering (Hammer and Champy, 1993)..
Although reengineering efforts may not result in change in all these processes, proponents argue that firms engaged in reengineering must experience radical change in most of these key areas in order to experience success.
4. Reeengineering & Management FAD: A theoretical persepective:
We might define a management fad as "a managerial intervention, aimed at improving organisational performance, which appears innovative, rational, and functional" (Carson, 1999, p. 321). Underpinning such a definition is the belief that those who advocate these fads have a genuine interested in providing practicing managers with valuable and meaningful advice (Cited in Carson, 1999)
However, Crainer (1998) suggests that the success of many management gurus, and the fads they advocate, stems as much from values drawn from the entertainment industry as it does from these gurus' capacity to supply meaningful advice and guidance to the practicing manager. (Cited in Yang and Chang, 2003)
Willmot and Wray-Bliss (1996, p. 62) noted that reengineering was "... set to become the most influential management idea or fad in the 1990s". Similarly, Coulson-Thomas (1996, p. 18), again writing about BPR, posed the following questions:
"Is BPR a temporary gravy train for consultants? Or is it a management fad equivalent to a flu epidemic, quickly spreading and leaving people and organizations worse for wear when it passes?"
It is important to realize that until they have proven their effectiveness in a range of situations and circumstances, even long-lived and sustainable developments in management theory and practice must endure a period were skeptics might dismiss the development as yet one more management fad. Indeed, as Carson et al., (1999) point out, many contributions to management thinking appear to exhibit an inherent life cycle beginning with their adoption, followed by their adaptation and modification to fit organizational realities and circumstances, and finally, in the case of contributions that ultimately fall by the wayside, their abandonment.
An interesting feature of Carson (1999) account of the management fad life cycle is its willingness to concede a role for socio-psychological processes in their analysis. For example, in the absence of clear and reliable information about a fad's utility, organizations might "... engage in social comparison and imitate the behaviors of others, spurring a domino-like effect" (Carson et al., 1999). In other words, organizations might simply mimic the behavior of others and adopt a fad as that fad's popularity grows, only to abandon the fad once its popularity begins to wane. Similarly, Carson et al. (1999) point to the existence of a "bandwagon effect" whereby organizations are driven to adopt fads by the fear of being "left out". (Cited in Lee & Philip, 2005)
The fundamental philosophy of reengineering is an innovative approach to change management, resulting in best practices. However, its overextension and misuse have resulted in dissatisfaction and have raised many concerns (Altinkemer et al, 1999). Tinnila (1995), and Hammer and Champy (1993) estimated that between 50 to 70 percent of reengineering efforts were not successful in achieving the desired breakthrough performance. Various reasons have been given for this, most of the failures connected to mismanagement of projects and to difficulties faced while attempting to meet strategic objectives when process redesign has been based on operational needs (Tinnila, 1995)
There reengineering can thus be a very demanding and challenging assignment if it is to stand alone to manage the changes.. Yang and Chang (2003) suggested that Business process reengineering (BPR) is following a typical maturity cycle as a business fad. Some of the more radical and flashy elements are omitted as the basic principles integrate into common sense and business and engineering school curricula.
5. Case examples of Reengineering
Early successes: healthy reengineering projects
In the early 1990s, management journals everywhere were reporting successful reengineering projects. Consultants were making vast sums of money. A survey of how the US business community viewed reengineering found that manufacturing had launched more reengineering projects than any other industry, with health care not far behind. According to the survey, 81 percent of the companies in the study had at least one reengineering project underway, with most information systems managers pleased with their organization's reengineering efforts. In addition, chief executives were not disappointed with the results they were getting thus far. (Champy, 2005)
This early enthusiasm was also documented in a report published by the Boston Consulting Group. The report described that a key component of reengineering is redefinition of what it means to be a manager, a transformation from command and control, top-down management, to leadership based on building internal capabilities and linking them to customer needs (Boston Consulting Group, 1993).
According to (Bambarger, 1994) many healthy reengineering projects took place between 1991 and 1994. For example, one video company reinvented its order fulfillment system and restored customer satisfaction. From summer 1991 to early 1993, the reengineering team achieved a zero defect ratio, surpassing its goal of reducing the cost of errors by $1.6 million. Four full-time positions were also eliminated. One of the displaced workers, the reengineering team leader, then became an internal reengineering consultant with the parent company. Another dislocated employee received an attractive early retirement, while the other two employees were re-deployed to different divisions of ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
According to (Bambarger, 1994) many healthy reengineering projects took place between 1991 and 1994. For example, one video company reinvented its order fulfillment system and restored customer satisfaction. From summer 1991 to early 1993, the reengineering team achieved a zero defect ratio, surpassing its goal of reducing the cost of errors by $1.6 million. Four full-time positions were also eliminated. One of the displaced workers, the reengineering team leader, then became an internal reengineering consultant with the parent company. Another dislocated employee received an attractive early retirement, while the other two employees were re-deployed to different divisions of the same company. (Example: 2)Notice, in this instance, people were being treated with respect. Those displaced by reengineering were provided with a soft landing ( Cited in Lee & Philip, 2005)).
Another successful implementation of reengineering occurred in late 1991, when a major aircraft contractor inaugurated a reengineering program for the assembly of a military cargo plane. The program shortened the time required to put one of the aircrafts together and reduced drastically the number of defects in the final product. The time spent correcting mistakes experienced spectacular decline, plunging from 8,625 hours at the beginning, to a mere 611 hours 16 months later. From this procedure alone, the company estimated cost savings of $1 million per plane. The company declared that there had been no reduction in the work force, though despite of the added responsibilities, the amount of overtime had fallen significantly (McCloud, 1993). (Example : 3)
Even in this era reengineering is again almost as popular as it was during the 1990s. Usage currently among companies surveyed, 61 percent, compared with 67 percent in 1993. In a recent analysis published in Strategy & Leadership, 9 out of 10 executives believe that IT can help create competitive advantage. ( Champy & Weges 2005). Still, they seem to wonder if they are using IT effectively. For instance, only 6 of 10 agree that their companies' spending on IT is aligned with their business strategies. So don't ignore the best practice reminders in this CEO advisory. ( Example :4)
6. Reengineering is still popular but with lots Questions
According to Boston consulting group (2007) Companies are once again launching large reengineering projects. This dramatic re-interest, as evidenced by a recent multi-industry, multi-national survey, is being fueled by global competition.
As we see executives, more than ever, committed to the success of process and technology initiatives. But we also sense that they are privately crossing their fingers that this round of investment will not result in an endless drain on corporate resources. To some executives, getting beyond IT train wrecks to achieve real business value feels like an elusive goal.Those concerns are understandable. The history of large process and information technology projects is littered with failure. The most recent public example is the FBI's effort to build a system that sweeps other law enforcement data bases for security information. The effort is critical to maintaining public safety, yet the project has been abandoned (Example: 5)
Chempy and Wegner (2005) suggested that similar failures occurred in the private sector of USA, especially in applications broadly described as ERP - "enterprise resource planning." ERP is the catchword for large systems that span processes from finance and accounting to human resource management to supply chain optimization. One engineering company that has spent $85 million on its process change and ERP system and is still spending, not really knowing what it will take to complete the work and another manufacturing company that spent $200 million and never turned its system "on". (Example: 6)
These failures represent not only lost dollars, but also lost opportunity and, potentially, lost competitiveness.
With every passing year the term "reengineering" was rapidly losing its original meaning even though every major company was claiming to use reengineering irrespective of how or what they were changing. One CEO, for example, even said with great satisfaction, that his company "reengineered" its employees' coffee whitener from cream to milk (The Economist, 1994). In sum, many reengineering programs had little to do with radical rethinking of a company's business processes. Instead, they were solely directed at cutting costs (Katz, 1995).
Furthermore, additional doubts about the effectiveness of reengineering began to surface. According to (Barr, 1995) one survey reported that 68 percent of senior executives polled were experiencing unanticipated problems with reengineering.( Cited in Katz, 1995)
Furthermore, an ISR survey of more than 350,000 It seemed that newly lean companies had to replace lost staff functions with expensive consultants. The added cost of consultants was verified in October 1995, when the Boston Globe published an article by Edward Deevy, noting that American business was paying consulting firms about $20 billion a year for poor advice (Deevy, 1995). (Example :7)
7. Why reengineering fails?
Tom Davenport, one of the gurus of reengineering, proposed an answer in the article entitled "Why reengineering failed: the fad that forgot people" (Davenport, 1996). In his words, "reengineering treated people inside company as if they were just so many bits and bytes, interchangeable parts to be reengineered". (Cited by Dayr & Leticia, 2001)
However, lot of organizations benefit from reengineering such as Volvo who uses cost-cutting tools such as lean distribution, reduced inventory, and staff reductions to move closer to its customers. The solution hinges on an increased use of IT, the elimination of middlemen, introduction of customer-based production, and a shift to process management. The results include lower inventory costs, shortened lead-times, increased delivery precision, and higher customer satisfaction. As in most organizations, the Volvo experience shows that the required organizational changes are not accomplished overnight. (Susanne & Flip, 2001) They require top management involvement to gain legitimacy at lower levels, flexibility on the part of senior and middle management whose traditional roles are questioned, an organizational culture which encourages experimentation and forgives failures, and a willingness on the part of the firm's external network of suppliers and distributors to accept new tasks while losing others. ( Example :8)
8. Fad life cycle, Reengineering, Benefits & Criticisms
A good fad has a life-cycle. It emerges as weak signals and small noises among the initiated and eventually it gets big splash through a book, a TV-program or a conference series. It has its heyday with front-page publicity, big money lecture circuit and the crowd of imitators lining up. Then growth starts to flatten out. A sure sign of maturity is that chairs are established at universities and undergraduate courses offered. Consequently, consulting fees go down, the big names and creative thinkers leave the area and system builders take over. The fad starts to disappear into the woodworks of general business common sense and standard methodology. Thereby the fad has played its part and made its contribution to insight, knowledge and, hopefully, productivity.( Paul and Sami : 2005)
Total quality management (TQM) was once a good fad, but now, according to Business Week, "it is dead like a pet rock" (Byrne, 1997). The lessons of TQM have solidified in quality systems and quality award structures; there are hundreds of educational institutions offering courses in quality. (Cited by Paul and Sami: 1998)
However, Paul and Sami (1998) suggested that while the hype around fads tends to be more subdued than in the USA, the impact of reengineering has been immense all over the world. The auothors have presented the case study of NTC & Telia to demostrate the impact of reengineering:
Telecommunications (NTC) is part of Nokia Group, a Finnish company focusing on both wired and wireless telecommunications. With net sales of US$2.5 billion and employing 13,400 people, it is the biggest of Nokia's five business units. Telia is the region's largest telecommunication operator. From a home base in Sweden, Telia has extended its operations to other Nordic countries. Telia has cooperated with NTC since the mid-1970s using NTC's systems incorporated into its access network.
In order to facilitatate faster transmission between Telia and FAS order receiving. A project team was appointed and it started to improve the whole process towards a true just-in-time (JIT) system. Working in cooperation with Telia, the team incorporated automated routines to sales, production planning and production line steering systems, developed an advanced practice to forecast Telia's needs and established a special storage buffer for Telia's orders. These arrangements shortened the lead-time to seven workings days, allowing one day for order handling and three days for production as well as transportation. (Example: 9)
Reengineering may present organizations with new competitive options for current business. For example, American Airlines' Sabre booking system was originally built to save time and money for travel agents and improve customer satisfaction through one-stop shopping and shorter waiting times. It has, however, also allowed AA to make strategic moves against its charter and discount competitors. The huge databases accumulated into the bowels of Sabre enabled AA to develop a flexible pricing system, yield management, which smaller and cheaper competitors could not match. This option translated into cost savings through higher utilization rates of capital, i.e. airplanes (Petzinger, 1995). (Example: 10)
The benefits from reengineering arise from combinations of organizational changes with information and communication technology. They can be categorized into three operational values:
* customer perceived value;
* cost savings; and
* Business option value.
Enso Ltd., is one of the three big forest industry companies in Finland. Successfully Implemented GPS navigation and route optimization to wood procurement. To tackle numerous problems with procurement Enso started to reengineer its wood procurement management. A new system called EPO (Finnish acronym for Enso wood procurement management) was developed based on most recent ICT. Paul & Sami: 1998) Together with shorter overall lead-time all this improves the quality of final products and thus increases the end customer's satisfaction. (Example: 11)
However, The widespread - and sometime ruthless - application of reengineering techniques has drawn critics, of which Hamel and Prahalad (1994) have been the most vocal. Their argument is that reengineering - when applied simply as a cost cutting tool - leads to "corporate anorexia", and that corporations "can't shrink into greatness". Rather companies should define their core competencies and try to use them to aggressively and proactively define the future of their industries and markets. Business option value can be seen as a conceptual link between these two positions. The marriage between ICT and new ways or organizing work may produce more and different offspring than what at first glance meets the eye.
4Reengineered registration process
( Adopted from Paul & Sami : 1998)
In early 1996, a consortium of five Finnish universities started a project aiming to develop a mutual system to support teaching and learning (SSTL). The system checks the student's right to take the examination and informs in case of problems. Laboratories and teachers get information on participating students from the systems. They use the Web browser as an interface to the system too. Prepared examinations are sent via e-mail to the faculty office, where they are printed by courses and examination halls. Which improved the teaching a learning experience in to a huge extent. ( Paul & Sami : 1998) ( Example :12)
As reengineering moves from a management fad into a part of accepted wisdom and general methodology, it will shed some of its radical and faddish elements. What from a distance appears as a radical change following a great master plan, may at a closer look be a series of smaller improvement steps that enable further steps which together may lead to radical changes.
9. IT driven Reengineering
The SAP case
Hansen is a network of sales, production and distribution units. The management group was equally diverse before the change. A management coalition in the group decided to undertake business process reengineering and SAP R/3. Which resulted that different units were electronically integrated both inside and outside the traditional factories. This included sales in relation to order handling, scheduling and machine/shop units, etc. Particularly in the realisation of the sales order process across geographical units technical, problems occurred that meant months of struggling with the system. The group claims that it lost £2 million in turn over.( Koch : 2001) ( Example : 13)
The Baan case
Olsen is characterised by discrete high volume production combined with a large net of suppliers. After one year of planning the change programme was a loosely co-ordinated BPR and ERP program. The BPR element was covert - a conscious decision by management to avoid problems with employees. During 1997 to spring 1999 the configuration and customisation process took most of the energy of the Baan project group. The work invested in technical issues meant that the BPR-strategy elements almost disappeared. ( Koch 2001) ( Example : 14)
0.CRM, SCM and Reengineering
Successful companies tend to align their governance mechanisms with customer role configurations when managing relations with customers as if they were employees of the firm. The US national pharmacy chain, CVS Pharmacy, employs impersonal market mode (aligned with the customer-as-buyer role) for maintaining high morale among its customers. For example, their use of a "shopper" card that is swiped with each purchase not only provides immediate feedback to customers regarding their cost savings for using the card, but also provides for the accrual of store credit that may be used at a later date.( Example :15)
In an example provided by Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2000), the Whitney Museum in New York provides multimedia PCs to be used by visitors alone or with tour guides so that people can tailor their visits to their specific interests. In this example, a relational market governance form (aligned with the customer-as-user role) is used. In a situation of low performance ambiguity and low goal incongruence, engagement in a cooperative effort whereby the visitor may choose whether to use an additional tour guide, an option provided by the museum is most feasible.( Example :16)
Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2000) illustrate the role Palm Pilot users play in establishing an image for the Palm Pilot company and their products. For example, Amazon.com uses a relational hierarchy mechanism by providing recommendations based on the customer's previous purchases and the purchases of other customers who have bought similar books or other products. ( Example :17)
Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2000) suggested , "As its customers' tastes and preferences evolve, Amazon's engagement with them reflects those changes." By helping out other customers with purchasing decisions, the customer is an engaged co-producer for the firm.
Medtronic, Inc. went even further in its CRM by engaging patients to collect data regarding their health and transmitting it by a standard telephone line to the Medtronic CareLink Network, which maintains a dedicated secure web site where physicians can review patient data, and patients can check on their own conditions. As Medtronic's technology platform can support a wide range of devices and remote monitoring/diagnostic systems, it has the potential to be used for new value-creating processes such as monitoring blood sugar readings, brain activity, blood pressure, and other important physiological measures. ( Example :18)
In the information age ss the competitive context of business changes, it brings with it new complexities and concerns for the management of business (Christopher, 1996). Companies require adequate strategies for moving information and products quickly throughout their supply chain network. Supply chain management is currently perceived as an effective means of achieving successful competitive advantage.
The Indian Paint Company business portfolio underwent a rapid transformation during the period 2002-04 because of significant growth in the Decorative business, bringing the portfolio more in line with the market. It is felt to be critical that the company makes the product available at the lowest cost through superior supply chain management. And reengineering was evident and iniviatble from them. Step by step business transformation slowly led them to safer territory.( Sanjay & Sahay : 2006) ( Example : 19)
1.Reengineering and success stories
When implemented properly, reengineering can do wonders for companies. The following are examples of some US companies that capitalized on the reengineering advantages.
( Souce : Mohsen, 1999, www.emerald.com)
Hallmark
The traditional way for new products to reach the market at Hallmark took up to two years. Hallmark's reengineering effort, driven by empowered teams, has paid off: the company has reduced the design time by 200 percent with the introduction of more than 23,000 new card lines each year (Wellins and Murphy, 1995). (Example: 20)
IBM Credit Corporation
The overall credit checking process took anywhere from six days to two weeks and frustrated the IBM salesperson and the ultimate customer. A detailed reengineering study revealed that in less than two hours one person could handle the credit check. IBM Credit Corporation reengineered its credit application process from multifunctioning activity to a single process format. The entire credit application and the approval process are processed much more rapidly than before, and credit can be granted, or an application rejected, in less than four hours (Pegels, 1995). (Example: 21) (Cited by Mohsen, 1999)
Ford Motor Company
After Ford Motor Company applied reengineering the account payable department staff was reduced from 500 to 125 people, while the process to validate invoices was reduced substantially, and discrepancies and payment delays were greatly improved. Ford applied the same reengineering process to other divisions. For example at Ford's engine manufacturing division, the accounts payable staff was cut by 95 percent (Hammer and Champy, 1993). (Example: 22)
Liberty Mutual
Liberty Mutual is a Boston-based insurance and financial services company reingineeredit's process is based on cross-functional teams of sales, underwriting, and loss-prevention experts, who are responsible for the entire process from sales planning through application processing and policy issuance. Reengineering produced impressive improvements. The company reduced the time it took to process a contract by more than half, offering quotes to many more prospects than before, and has doubled the number of quotes that turn into closed deals. Overall, the company benefited more than $50 million a year from the new process (Hammer and Stanton, 1995). (Example: 23)
Wal-Mart
Wal-Mart's procurement and distribution process is an example of leveraging operational efficiency into increased market share and profits. It is estimated that Wal-Mart is able to realize a 2 percent cost advantage over its nearest competitors because of this new Mart's procurement and distribution process process. In a market with a 6 percent margin this is truly a competitive advantage (Furey and Diorio, 1994) (Cited by Mohsen, 1999) (Example :24)
Kodak
In 1995, the Eastman Kodak Company approached several consulting companies when deciding on a new operating system for its 30,000 desktop machines. Because the company could not agree internally, the consulting companies represented a fresh perspective and the latest information. Bottom line, the company made the correct decision and saved itself thousands of dollars in costs (Violino and Levin, 1997). (Example :25)
Chase Manhattan Bank
BPR reengineered the name and address change process to foster the brand promise of "one and done". On average, Chase processes about 6.4 million name and/or addresses each year. The project team partnered with credit card, call center, mortgage and auto finance to gain an understanding of the current business environment. Chase's BPR team developed a redesigned process model modifying the existing technology architecture. (Example :26)
AutoDesk
AutoDesk company implemented SAP with significant business results: quote to time shipped reduced from two weeks to 24 hours and quarterly accounting preparation time was decreased by 50 per cent (Davenport, 1995). (Example :27)
Adaptec
In Adaptec, a computer parts manufacturer, SAP was implemented to connect with assembly subcontractors in South East Asia. In the computer industry, the first company to market reaps the highest rewards. After SAP, average production cycle was reduced from 12 weeks to eight weeks (Wilder and Stein, 1997) (Example :28)
2.Conclusions
These examples show how business process reengineering can be applied to both manufacturing and service firms.However, Organizations often fail to achieve reengineering objectives because they trivialize the concept. Reengineering is not downsizing, automation, restructuring, or more of the same. It is revising organizational processes and changing the way work is carried out. ( Mohsen : 1999)
However, there have been frequent reports about the difficulties experienced in gaining any benefits from the reengineering efforts. According to one study, 15 percent of the 100 large, publicly held firms surveyed labeled reengineering a fad (Verespej, 1995). Another study of 20 reengineering projects found that more than half of these projects provided less than 5 percent in performance improvement (Hall et al., 1993). Michael Hammer, the MIT professor who first introduced the concept of reengineering, estimated that some 50 to 70 percent of all reengineering initiatives fail to achieve their objectives (Hammer, 1990). ( Cited in Mohsen: 1998)
Moreover, Hammer and Champy( 1993) mentioned that the longer they worked with organizations, about misuse and abuse of the term reengineering and the fact that many who used the term did not understand it. Almost any organizational change effort began to fall under this label. Process reengineering became associated with downsizing, restructuring, automation, more use of technology, delayering, flattering the hierarchy, reorganizing and total quality management. While related to some of these terms, Hammer and Champy view process reengineering as different from them in critical ways. ( Cited by Ronald: 2004)
Most interesting fact is that different people within the same organization have different views on what process reengineering is, as well as people who work in different organizations. The implementation of process reengineering has varied across organizations, being superficial in some and more intensive in others (Hendry, 1995). Proponents of process reengineering provide case studies of successes. Organizations like Taco Bell, Capital Holding, Bell Atlantic are described in Hammer and Champy (1993) as popular reengineer examples . (Example :29)
According to Jackson ( 1994) the more extreme calls to action of some BPR advocates do not live up to the reality test. They encourage us to seek fundamentally new ways of doing things but it is hard to think of a process that has fundamentally changed. Jackson stressed that the basic transactions of business are essentially the same as they were in the early 1900s. Jackson ( 1994) again argued that there was only one perfect example for fundamental change in business processes - the Toyota production system.( Example : 30)
Jackson( 1994) also stressed that all other organizations used information technology to speed up processes and improve communications, but behind the screens, there have been few fundamental changes.
The need for radical change facing many organizations is rarely the result of rapid changes. Oil crises do happen as do large currency shifts, but they are rarely the cause of major organizational crises. These are usually caused by slow, gradual shifts in markets and evolutionary developments in societies and technologies. ( Jackson : 1994). The author prsented some interesting arguments; such as IBM's problems do not stem from an overnight shift to open systems, services and smaller, lower cost hardware. That happened over many years and was predicted very early in the cycle. ( Example: 31) GM and Ford did not wake up one morning to find the Japanese camped in their markets with a new way of making cars. ( Example : 32) Taiichi Ohno of Toyota conceived the concept of just-in-time manufacturing on a visit to America in the 1930s. It was developed over a number of years, indeed it is still evolving. ( Example : 33)
3. Final thoughts
Reengineering is not going to go away soon. It is the current management vogue. Many companies have embraced reengineering as the most effective tool to redesign their core processes and implement changes to make the organization more efficient and competitive. The motivation for reengineering is usually the realization that there is a need to speed up the process, reduce needed resources, improve productivity and efficiency, and improve competitiveness.
Different authors presented their view of reengineering from different perspective, and although plenty of argument could be found in the literature against reengineering, it is almost impossible to dismiss reengineering at 21st century, specially considering the fact that large billion dollar corporation are using this term to justify their process improvement steps.
Re-engineering requires a big investment of time and energy, and money, and it usually results in a substantial dislocation, of people and organizational structure. It cannot be undertaken lightly. An organization may not be able to absorb the kind of radical change re-engineering brings; it may not have enough capital, people, management energy and attention or expertise to pull it off, say some consultants
Finally, on the light of researh it is a safer thing to say that Reengineering would definitely have a lasting value in management literature as well as in real business world .organizations eager to reap the reengineering benefits should be warned to carefully evaluate its risks. Further studies are needed to examine positive as well as negative impacts of reengineering on organizations.
Bibliography
. Altinkemer, K., Chaturvedi, A., Kondareddy, S. (1999), "Business process reengineering and organizational performance: an exploration of issues", International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 18 No.6, pp.381-92.
2. Armistead, C, Rowland, P (1994), "Improving the chances of success for BPR initiatives by learning from the success and failures of operations management philosophies", Cranfield University, UK,
3. Applebaum, A. (2001), "The constant customer", The Gallup Management Journal, Vol. 17 pp.1-5.
4. Bae, J.-S., Jeong, S.-C., Seo, Y., Kim, Y., Kang, S.-H. (1999), "Integration of workflow management and simulation", Computers & Industrial Engineering, Vol. 37 No.1-2, pp.203-6
5. Barnard, C. (1938), The Functions of the Executive, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, .
6. Barnard, C. (1940), "Comments on the job of the executive", Harvard Business Review, Vol. 18 pp.295-309.
7. Barnard, C. (1948), Organization and Management, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA,
8. Bateson, J. (2002), "Customer performance and quality in services", Managing Service Quality, Vol. 12 pp.206-9
9. Bevir, M. (2000b), "Philosophy, rhetoric, and power: a response to my critics", Rethinking History, Vol. 4 No.3, pp.341-50.
0. Bitner, J., Farasnda, W., Hubbert, A., Zeithaml, V. (1997), "Customer contributions and roles in service delivery", International Journal or Service Industry Management, Vol. 8 pp.193-208.
1. Koch, Christian; BPR and ERP: realising a vision of process with IT
Business Process Management Journal; Volume: 7 Issue: 3; 2001 Research paper
2. Carson, P.P., Lanier, P.A., Carson, K.D., Birkenmeier, B.J. (1999), "A historical perspective on fad adoption and abandonment", Journal of Management History, Vol. 5 No.6, pp.320-33.
3. Champy, Joe Weger ; Reengineering: the second time around Strategy & Leadership; Volume: 33 Issue: 5; 2005 Conceptual paper
4. Davenport, T. (1992), Process Innovation: Reengineering Work through Information Technology, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, .
5. Davenport, T. (1996), "Why reengineering failed: the fad that forgot people", Fast Company, Vol. Premiere Issue No.January, .
6. Davidson, W.H. (1993), "Beyond re-engineering: the three phases of business transformation", IBM Systems Journal, pp.65-79
7. Deevy, E. (1995), "Get rid of experts, not workers", The Boston Globe, No.24 October, .
8. Dayr Reis, Leticia Peña; Reengineering the motivation to work Management Decision; Volume: 39 Issue: 8; 2001 General review
9. Furey, T.R., Diorio, S.G (1994), "Making reengineering strategic", Planning Review,
20. Hammer, M. (1990), "Re-engineering work: don't automate, obliterate", Harvard Business Review, Vol. 68 pp.104.
21. Hammer, M., Champy, J (1993), Reengineering the Corporation, HarperCollins, New York, NY, .
22. Hammer, M., Champy, J. (1993), Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution, Harper Business, New York, NY,
23. Hammer, M, Stanton, S.A (1995), The Reengineering Revolution, Hammer and Co,
24. ISR (1995), Personnel Journal, Vol. September.
25. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management; Volume: 55 Issue: 8; 2006 Case study
26. (The) Economist, No.5 November, . (1994),
27. Katz, R. (1995), "Is reengineering already dead?", Quality Digest, Vol. January.
28. Kaplan, R.B., Murdock, L. (1991), "Rethinking the corporation: core process redesign", The McKinsey Quarterly, No.2, .
29. Lee D. Parker, Philip Ritson ; Fads, stereotypes and management gurus: Fayol and Follett today Management Decision; Volume: 43 Issue: 10; 2005 Research paper
30. McCloud, J. (1993), "McDonnell Douglas saves over $1,000,000 per plane with reengineering effort", Industrial Engineering, Vol. October pp.27-30
31. Mohsen Attaran, Glenn G. Wood ; How to succeed at reengineering Management Decision; Volume: 37 Issue: 10; 1999 Research paper
32. Namchul Shin, Donald F. Jemella; "Business process reengineering and performance improvement: The case of Chase Manhattan Bank"
Business Process Management Journal; Volume: 8 Issue: 4; 2002 Case study
33. Paul Lillrank, Sami Holocaine; Reengineering for business option value
Journal of Organizational Change Management; Volume: 11 Issue: 3; 1998 Research paper
34. Prahalad, C.K., Ramaswamy, V. (2000), "Co-opting customer competence", Harvard Business Review, Vol. 78 pp.79-87.
35. Peng S. Chan, Carl Land, "Implementing reengineering using information technology"
Business Process Management Journal; Volume: 5 Issue: 4; 1999 Research paper
36. Pegels, C.C. (1995), Total Quality Management: A Survey of Its Important Aspects, Boyd & Fraser.,
37. Ronald J. Burke "Process reengineering: who embraces it and why?"
The TQM Magazine; Volume: 16 Issue: 2; 2004 Research paper / Case study
38. Sanjay Sehgal, B.S. Sahay, S.K. Goya; Reengineering the supply chain in a paint company
39. Susanne Hertz, Johny K. Johansson, Flip de Jager; Customer-oriented cost cutting: process management at Volvo Supply Chain Management: An International Journal; Volume: 6 Issue: 3; 2001 Case study)
40. Tinnila, M. (1995), "Strategic perspective to business process redesign", Management Decision, Vol. 12 No.3, pp.25-34.
41. Winco Kam-Chuen Yung, Danny Ting-Hong Chan; Application of value delivery system (VDS) and performance benchmarking in flexible business process reengineering
International Journal of Operations & Production Management; Volume: 23 Issue: 3; 2003 Research paper
