You are on page 1of 33

Addis Ababa University School of Business and Administration Department of Accounting and Finance

Module: Business Research Methods (MBA 613) Challenges to Implement Business Process Reengineering (BPR) at Samara University
Prepared by: Naod Mekonnen (GSR/2338/02)

Submitted to: Wollela A Y (Ph.D)

June 2010

Contents Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................. 2 1.1 Overview ........................................................................................................ 2 1.2. Statement of the problems ................................................................................. 4 1.3. Purpose of the study ........................................................................................... 5 Chapter 2: Literature review ......................................................................................... 6 2.1. Business Process Reengineering (BPR): theory ................................................ 6 2.1.1 BPR in higher education institution ........................................................ 8 2.1.2 BPR implementation barriers.................................................................. 9 2.2 Empirical studies on BPR ............................................................................ 11 2.3 Conclusion and knowledge gap ................................................................... 13 Chapter 3: Research design......................................................................................... 14 3.1 Research questions ....................................................................................... 14 3.2 Research design ............................................................................................ 14 3.2.1 Research method adopted ..................................................................... 17 Chapter 4: Significant, delimitation, final structure, work plan, and budgeted cost of the study ...................................................................................................................... 21 4.1 Significant of the study ................................................................................ 21 4.2 Delimitation of the study.............................................................................. 21 4.3 Final structure of the study........................................................................... 21 4.4 Work plan ..................................................................................................... 21 4.5 Budgeted cost ............................................................................................... 21 Reference .................................................................................................................... 22 Appendix: 1- Summary of key success/failure factors in BPR .................................. 25 Appendix: 2- Survey instrument ................................................................................. 26 Appendix: 3 - Work plan of the study ........................................................................ 31 Appendix: 4 - Budgeted cost of the study................................................................... 32


Chapter 1: Introduction This proposal is prepared to study the challenges faced by Samara University to implement Business Process Reengineering (BPR). Among various management tools, BPR is one of the management tool that can help the organization for effective, efficient and economic performance of business processes though dramatic and radical redesign of processes. It can also help to contributes benefit to the external stakeholders of the organization. The aim of this introductory chapter is to provide background information on the proposed study. The remaining sections of this chapter organized as follows: The first section presents overview of Samara University inline with BPR so as to provide background for the proposed study. The second section presents the statement of problems. Next, purpose of the study presented in the third section. 1.1 Overview Samara University is one of recently inaugurated universities in Ethiopia, which is located North-Eastern part of Ethiopia- region two, Afar. At the beginning of 2008, the University begins the conventional teaching-learning businesses by accepting more than 1,000 students assigned by the Ethiopian Ministry of Education (MoE). In doing so, the University adopted the ways of doing businesses from elder universities of Ethiopia like Addis Ababa University, Mekelle University and so on. However, the adopted processes criticized being as old fashioned processes that are scattered in pieces of tasks among unites of the University. That in turn dissatisfied both the customers and service providers. In addition, those old fashioned work practices lack to enhance the Ethiopian universities for effective, efficient and economic performance. As a result, the Ethiopian Ministry of Capacity Building (MCB) tries to introduce transformation in Ethiopia in the ways in which works have to be done by all government organization through BPR. Thus, under the delegation of MoE, Ethiopian


Allen and Fifield.. Likewise. The above mentioned studies examined the factors that affect successful implementation of BPR.universities. organizational culture. including Samara University. remained open questions. 1999). To carry out BPR project at Samara University. the University finished the redesign phase of BPR in May 2009 and assigned an implementation team to commence the implementation of newly designed processes in June 2009. the 3 . (2002) depart on the IT factor. however. Attaran (2000) attempted to identify barriers to successful implementation of BPR. engaged in BPR project starting from the last two years (2008 and 2009). the University not yet implemented the newly redesigned processes. it is appropriate to study the challenges faced at the early stage that will help to take corrective action before the project completely failed. The factors identified by various authors are almost similar. In Ethiopia. project planning and management. As a result. With this regard. 2007. management competency and support. Thus. the author claimed that the difference between success and failure did not depend on company size or resources. These factors include change management. However. although the introduction of BPR is recent phenomenon. Studies on the key success and failure factors of BPR implementation attempted to approach to identify different sets of factors (Ahmad et al. 1999. Eventually. Attaran and Wood. Beside this. 1999. the University‟s management had identified five processes and assigned redesign team members in October 2008. Particularly. Linden (1998) noted that the biggest disappointment of organizations‟ on BPR is with the implementation or more specifically. specific factors that affect BPR implementation and their magnitudes. IT infrastructure and financial resources. but on appropriate planning and avoidance of pitfalls. lack of implementation. Al-Mashari and Zairi. except Allen and Fifield (1999) and Terziovskia et al. Hammer and Champy (1993) estimated that about between 50 to 70 percent of BPR initiative fails to achieve their objectives. Samara University faced challenges to implement the redesigned processes.

In 4 . In addition to the will attempt to contribute to the literature by studying through a mixed method of research design to identify the factors that affect BPR implementation and to better understand the magnitudes of various factors that affect BPR implementation. And each unit focused only on one task that leads to frustrate the customers from ups and downs to get services from various units‟ handoffs. under the delegation of MoE. the University not yet implemented any of redesigned processes. this lack of implementation implied that the University‟s BPR project faced challenges to implement and its intended objective remained on shelf.2. in May 2009 Samara University finished the first phase of BPR project by redesigning new processes and arranged implementation team to commence the implementation process. the Ethiopian MCB tries to introduce transformation in Ethiopia in which works have to be done by all governmental organization through BPR. As such. Otherwise. Ethiopian universities. However. In this regard. To alleviate like the above mentioned working practices. Having this. engaged with BPR project to drastically change the traditional work practices with a new one. at least some selected redesigned processes have to be piloted and implemented. the rate of failure increased as time passed. Although in BPR principles all of the redesigned processes shall not be implemented once rather step-by-step of pilot study. 1. Allen and Fifield (1999) and United States General Accounting Office (1997) noted that implementing BPR project is far from straight forward activities. including Samara University. Statement of the problems The traditional working practices of Ethiopian public organizations criticized as being fragmented across various units of the organization. recently. Attaran and Wood (1999) added that BPR is still an unfulfilled promise for many organizations despite all the energy. effective and economical in this changing and competitive environment. money and efforts spent by organization trying to make their organizations‟ reengineering efforts successful. Accordingly. the traditional working practices are not efficient. Thus.

the purpose of this study will be:  to identify the factors that lead to face challenges to implement BPR at Samara University and to better understand the magnitude of the identified factors. In the second phase. the specific factors that the University faced to implement BPR and the magnitude of their effect not addressed on prior literature.general. management competency and support. qualitative interviews will be used to understand the magnitude of identified factors as challenges to implement BPR with the University president and two vice presidents at Samara University. 1. Allen and Fifield.3. project planning and management. organizational culture. and finally it presents conclusions and gap on BPR literature specific to the Ethiopian case. In general. IT and Financial resources. 1999). it is worth researching to identify the factors that affect BPR implementation and their magnitude on the implementation process. Samara University BPR implementation challenges could be traced to various factors that were identified by different authors (Ahmad et al. 1999. sequential mixed method study will be to examine BPR implementation. 5 . as more organizations undertake BPR. Al-Mashari and Zairi. 2007. However. Attaran and Wood. In the first phase. The reason for following up with qualitative research in the second phase is to better understand the magnitude of the identified factors. 1999. Therefore. Purpose of the study The purpose of this two-phase.. issues in implementing become major concerns. Information from this quantitative phase will be used further in second qualitative phase. quantitative survey research questions will identify factors that lead to faced challenges to implement BPR with BPR implementation and redesign team members of Samara University. The following chapter presents review of literature regarding to BPR along with its theory and empirical studies on it. such as change management.

it entails the fundamental and radical redesign of the business process to replace the old/traditional processes with a new one for the pursuit of new direction and perspective of the organization. section three presents conclusions and gaps in literature. BPR has been popular business reorganization for the past to decade. The term „Business Process Reengineering‟ was first introduced by Hammer (1990) and 6 . starting over entirely by considering how jobs in the organization put together.Chapter 2: Literature review Today. The new environment requires organizations to realize new working practices that can make up them to be responsive and flexible for the changing environment. Accordingly. Although those outdated philosophies and principles succeed to cope up the socio-economic challenges of that time. The review part has three sections. Business Process Reengineering (BPR). and so on. organizations adopt various types of management tools such as Total Quality Management (TQM). the following section presents prior empirical studies on BPR implementation.1. 2. competition among businesses and change in the working environment have created tough environment for organization that has been working with outdated philosophies and principles of work practices. then. Thus. BPR is about beginning a new from scratch. Restructuring. In doing so. globalization along with key driving forces such as customers behavior. they cannot fit today‟s new environment. The first section presents reviews regarding to theory of BPR. In light of the above induction. the aim of this chapter is to review literature on BPR and factors that can impede successful BPR implementation. the review of literature will help to establishes conceptual framework for the proposed study and highlight previous studies on BPR implementation with their underling concepts so as to helps to identify gaps in the literature and forward research questions for the proposed study. Finally. Business Process Reengineering (BPR): theory As indicated previously BPR is one of the management tools undertaken by organizations to respond to the changing environment.

many authors called BPR as process innovation. BPR has its own methodology and principles along with step-bystep procedures that encompasses starting from developing organizational mission to the final implementation of BPR project. business reengineering. 1993) pioneered various set of steps. These four keywords of BPR implied that before redesigning the process understanding the „fundamental‟ business operation is necessary. 7 . Having this insight. such as cost. Thus. in order to carry out BPR project. Tanoglu (2004) claimed Hammer and Champy (1993) BPR definition is widely accepted. cost and quality. dramatic and process. service. With respect to the steps. this definition comprises four keywords: fundamental. some Attaran‟s and Wood‟s (1999) general guide lines outlined hereunder. and speed”. radical. competition and change) resulted BPR. with globalization and extraordinary pace of development in the IT area. three driving forces (customers. Hammer and Champy (1993) defined BPR as: “…is the fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of business processes to achieve dramatic improvements in critical. Tanoglu (2004) claimed that during the beginning of 1990s. According to the authors. Following the introduction of concepts on BPR by Hammer (1990) and Davenport and Short (1990).   Reengineering effort should be by a clearly defined strategic mission. quality. Hammer and Champy. Although all of steps to carry out BPR not reviewed here due to scope limitation of the proposed study. various authors (Linden. 1994). a series steps have to be taken. Reengineering should focus on important cross organizational business processes critical to the mission of the organization. business process redesign. 1998. while it ignores the underlying rules and assumptions to „radically‟ redesign the process for „dramatic‟ performance of business „process‟ that can be measured the in terms of speed. contemporary measures of performance.Davenport and Short (1990). or process reengineering (Revenaugh. and later Linden‟s (1998) implementation steps presented. Because of these nomenclature variations.

Seeking opportunities for new sources of revenue growth could be an important driving for the reengineering efforts. training and workforce issues are important for effective implementation plan. 2000. the new process will furnish the required result of value. (v) Run pilot tests. So. (iv) Prepare a detailed implementation plan. (vii) Phase in long-term changes. and (vii) Measure the performance of the new process. These steps stressed that an implementation plan should be developed to spells out the work that needs to be done. and IT to the new process. Linden. 1998). 75-80% reduction in delivery time. (vi) Implement short-term changes. (iii) Hold an all hand meeting to review the model. (ii) Establish communication strategies. Also. According to Hummer and Champy (1993). Lingus (1993) (cited in Terziovskia et al. the next phase is implementation of the redesigned process. revise the redesigned processes if needed. Pilot testing provides a method for refining the process and building support for the full implementation. management and measurement system. The following are outlined by Linden (1998) as steps to be followed during the implementation phase.  Leadership plays an important role in the success of reengineering. 608 . Cost reduction is not the only goal of reengineering. values and beliefs.. (i) Develop a charter.1. 2.1 BPR in higher education institution The motivation to undertake BPR project is usually the realization of breakthrough performance improvement. 2002) claimed that a “30-35% reduction in the cost of sales. decision points. After the first phase of BPR completed with redesigned process. One is the redesigned process tested and implemented. with time frames. Further. the implementation phase involves two points. the steps stressed the importance of ongoing performance measurement and feedback to continually improve the new processes once it is in place. and resource allocations. Organizations should adopt a suitable BPR methodology to serve as a management framework for the implementation (Attaran. and the other point is the alignment of organization‟s structure.

IBM Credit Co. 2003. etc) achieved larger cost reduction. Thus. 1999. in Malaysia. and so on) used BPR as a panacea for organizational illness and to respond to high level of competition. Beside this. educational institutions in pursuit of improved performance used BPR in various countries. In these regards. 2004. effectiveness and economic performance (Sohail et al. BPR can be used to reorganize educational institutions. For example. As Hammer and Champy (1993) estimated. many organizations in various industries (banking. linden (1998) noted the biggest source 9 . 1995). 1999). Wal-Mart. services. improved quality and productivity. Casey (1995) stressed that BPR offers a thoroughly researched and well-crafted prescriptions punch list for evaluating how well a college or university runs its business. 2004).1. Allen and Fifield.. since educational institutions function similar to any other business organizations. 2. However. Terziovskia et al. Spain. 2006. about 70 percent of BPR projects fail to achieve dramatic results that the organizations intended to achieve. New Zealand. higher profits. Revenaugh. Several authors (Attaran and Wood. 65-70% reduction in the cost of quality. As a result. changing environment and customer need (Mnisha.2 BPR implementation barriers BPR will have significant positive results if implemented correctly. automobile. as indicated previously the three driving forces (change.. 1994) indicated numerous organizations (Ford Motor.80% reduction in inventory.. 2004. In general. 2004. Casey. competition and customer) redirect organizations to look new working practices. not all organizations achieved their intended result through BPR. despite the significant growth of BPR literature and increasingly useed by many organizations. were all possible through effective BPR. Attaran and Wood. faster response to market and customer service through BPR. and United State of America (USA) educational institution implemented BPR to enhance efficiency. United Kingdom (UK). these experiences highlighted that higher education institutions can adopt BPR for the enhancements of their performances like other types of business organizations. tools used by business organizations can be implemented by them too (Balaji. 1999. Likewise. and unpredictable but substantial increased market share”. Adenso-Diaz and Canteli. Balaji. Therefore.

restructuring. employees fear about job displacement due to newly redesigned process and coping with resistance to BPR changing needs to be alleviated. and „failure to test the process‟ to understand the impact of any process change. At the end. Attaran (2000) concluded that organization often fail to achieve BPR objectives because they trivialize the concept and ignoring the pitfalls can be dangerous because it makes the BPR effort just another shot lived improvement. To understand thoroughly the issues involved on BPR implementation failure. issues on the BPR implementation becomes a major concern. misapplication of the term. 1999) to eight. this section reviewed the primary barriers for effective BPR implementation. Employees play an important role in the success of BPR. and top management must change their ways of thinking and develop new skills. management failure to change. Hence. BPR requires creative thinking and new perspective on the part of management. Attaran (2000) advanced the above discussed five primary obstacles (Attaran and Wood. The author also clarified the difference between success and failure as not depend on the company size or resources. Thus. Attaran and Wood (1999) identified five primary obstacles to more effective BPR implementation. as more organizations undertaken BPR project. There are many reasons that make BPR project fails. or more specifically. the implementation is certain to fail. lack of implementation. but on appropriate planning and avoidance of pitfalls. automation.of organizational disappointment with BPR change effort is implementation. The additional three primary obstacles are „lack of flexibility‟ in terms of existing rigid infrastructure of the organization. lack of proper strategy. It is dramatic revising of the organization process and changing the way in which work is carried out. and failing to recognize the importance of people. Without an effective approach to deal with employees involved in the BPR effort. Attaran‟s and Wood‟s (1999) five primary obstacls underlying thought is appropriate. They are misunderstanding of the concept. or more of the same. Such as BPR is not downsizing. „lack of organizational communication‟ to loop feedbacks for employees to air their concerns. 10 .

In general. such as change management. Starting from the introduction of BPR at the beginning of 1990s. Al-Mashari and Zairi (1999) recognized that the implementation process of BPR is complex and needs to be checked against several success and failure factors to ensure successful implementation. management competency and support. So far. However. that need to be addressed. as well as to avoid implementation pitfalls. (2007) showed critical success factors of BPR in Malaysia higher education institutions.2 Empirical studies on BPR As indicated previously. competition and customers (Hammer and Champy.On the top of the above mentioned factors. 2. the exact relationships between these factors and BPR implementation failure (success). quality management system and satisfactory rewards. Research carried out by Ahmad et al. and adequate financial resources. issues rearing to BPR increased and various researchers had undertaken studies on it. less bureaucratic and participative. The findings highlighted that seven factors were critical for the successful implementation of BPR. their 11 . IT or information system. organizations adopt BPR for better performance. Also they had distilled the five success and failure factors in to thirty three and twenty two subgroups. they had identified five dimensions. IT infrastructure. In this section selected empirical studies on BPR reviewed. organizational structure. 1993). The above mentioned factors for the failure of BPR implementation suggest that BPR implementation process constrained by various factors. The driving factors to undertake BPR may traced to the „three C‟s‟ of change. The factors are team work and quality culture. and the magnitude of different factor for the implementation failure remained as open. effective change management. to date. respectively (see appendix 1). In their review of both soft and hard factors that cause success and failure of BPR effort. reviews of literature regarding to BPR theory presented the following section presents empirical studies on BPR. effective project management. project planning and management. The study used a case study based on open ended interviews to the top management and BPR team of the three selected private higher education in Malaysia.

business process improvement (conservative change programs). such as misunderstanding of the concept and misapplication of terms of BPR that were outlined by Attaran and Wood (1999). and organizational transformation. In other words. flexibility and communication that were outlined by Attaran (2000). failure to reengineer human resources. institutional policies and entrenched values. complex information requirements. The findings drawn from the study (Allen and provides important lessons as a condition for the success of BPR project. the professional status of academics and inertia within the universities make radical changing unlikely. they had override other factors for the success of BPR implementation. Whereas. And the selected five universities are for the most part of implementing represent a limited approximation of BPR techniques. the power of academic departments. Allen and Fiefield (1999) studied the applicability of BPR to higher institution in the UK along with factors that affect the change process of BPR. maintaining the status quo. At the first glance. In doing so. Those factors are senior management approval. 1999) are that the organizational culture and structure of higher education institutions limit the degree of change sought from BPR and insufficient attention given to the human resources side of change management. As such. Particularly. it is difficult to limiting critical success factors in to seven. IT driven change. The radical change of BPR conflicted with the organizational factors mentioned previously. the undertaken BPR project is not about radically changing the organization by obliterating existing processes. inertia. 12 . instead it is process improvement. the researchers identified a range of factors that make implementing BPR in these universities a difficult process. academic freedom. the researchers adopted case study approach on five selected universities of UK and gathered data through seven structured interviews from project stakeholders in the universities undergoing BPR programs.

the concept of BPR was first introduced by Hammer (1990) and Davenport and Short (1990) as a result of globalization and extraordinary pace of IT development with the three driving forces of customers. competition.. As per the researcher knowledge. 2004. this gap leads to originate the following research question and a need to study on BPR implementation challenges: What are the various factors Samara University faced challenges to implement BPR and their magnitudes to affect BPR implementation? 13 . etc.2. Allen and Fifield. and BPR is one of the management tool undertaken by organizations to enhance their performance. and change.3 Conclusion and knowledge gap Organizations required responding to changing environments through various management tools. there is no comprehensive study on BPR implementation challenges in Ethiopia. Since education institutions function like other type of businesses. BPR also used by education institutions in Malaysia. 2000) mentioned numerous failure factors of BPR. misapplications of BPR terms. Adenso-Diaz and Canteli. UK. Various organization employed BPR in pursuit of improved performances and to respond to changing environment. The study conducted by Ahmad et al. about 70 percent of BPR project failed. not all organization realized the promises of BPR. and USA (Sohail et al. 1995). Despite the increased use of BPR in various organization resulted enhanced performance. 2006. Casey. Various authors (Al-Mashari and Zairi. Spain. Attaran. management failure to change. 1999. Such as: misunderstanding of BPR concepts. 1999. New Zealand. 2004. Beside this. such as academic freedom and complex information requirements. According to Hammer and Champy (1993) estimate. (2007) showed that seven factors contribute for the success of BPR project for Malaysia‟s higher education institution. Allen and Fiefield (1999) study indicate that factors that were not identified by other researchers. Thus. Balaji.

the purpose of the study is to identify the factors that lead to face challenges to implement BPR at Samara University and to better understand the magnitude of the identified factors. The purpose of this chapter is to present the research questions. Between the two strands. On the other hand. RQ3. Samara University in specific.2 Research design There are three types of research design: quantitative. qualitative research is a means for exploring and understanding the meaning individuals or groups ascribe to a social or human problem. How do those factors affect BPR implementation at the University? What is the magnitude of each factor that affects the University‟s BPR project? 3. qualitative and mixed methods designs.1 Research questions As mentioned in chapter 1. Factors that affect BPR implementation varied from organization to organization. the characters and magnitudes of various factors varied among organizations. Beside this. What are the challenging factors that the university faces to implement BPR? Why Samara University does faced challenges to implement BPR? RQ2. respectively presented in this chapter. RQ1. the following three research questions developed as follow. Regarding to Ethiopian higher education institution. Thus. the literature review confirms that there is no studies on BPR implementation challenges. the main principles of research methodology and the choice of the appropriate research method for the proposed study. mixed methods research is an approach 14 . Quantitative research is a means for testing objective theories by examining the relationship among variables. To achieve the intended purposes as well as the research problem the research questions developed in this section.Chapter 3: Research design The previous chapter presented reviews of literature on BPR along with various factors as barrier to implement BPR. 3.

and collect data through standardized instruments that are close-ended question and numeric data. quantitative and qualitative designs have distinct characters. 5). p. However. research problem inquire that combines or associates both quantitative and qualitative designs (Creswell 2009. 8). Quantitative design employs strategies of inquiry such as survey and experiment. qualitative and mixed methods design (Creswell 2009. p. Using statistical method it generalizes about the population from the sample (Creswell 2009. 3). p. while mixed methods design shares the characters of both designs. and specific methods for the quantitative. discrete set of ideas to test variables that comprise hypotheses and research questions. procedures of inquiry. p. The following sections discussed the philosophical worldview. and „reductionistic philosophy‟ to reduce the ideas into a small. The research design involves the interactions of philosophical worldview. and data collection methods. As tried to indicate the types of research design and their meaning previously. Qualitative research design possesses social constructivism worldview assumptions that holds individuals seek to understand the world in which they live and work. and methods for each types of research in which it will help to choose for the proposed study. 145-152). p. the researcher experience. audiences for the study. 4). analysis and interpretation (Creswell 2009. It employs strategies of inquiry like ethnographies. p. Quantitative research design possesses the postpositivist worldview assumption that encompasses „deterministic philosophy‟ in which causes probably determine the effect. strategies of inquiry. The participant views relied and participants construct meanings and the researcher inductively develops theory or pattern of subjective meaning (Creswell 2009. strategies of inquiry. Postpositivism develop knowledge based on objective observation and measurement as well as verify theories that govern the world (Creswell 2009. 15 . Qualitative research design tries to assess experiences and events contextually within the participants‟ natural setting. 7). the selection of a research design involves the considerations of the worldview assumptions the research brings to study.

16 . phenomenological research and narrative research and collect data through observation. 10). 2004. or transformative to advocate marginalized groups (Creswell 2009. In general. 14). In the case of BPR implementation in higher education. Terziovskia et al. p. 2006. quantitative and qualitative data collected. As cited in Creswell (2009. to integrate or combine the quantitative and qualitative data to identify participants or questions to ask for the other method or to reinforce each other. Although the advantages and disadvantages of them not discussed here. interviews. p. Mixed methods design possesses the pragmatic worldview that focused on the research problem for the consequence of actions.. 2002. studies on BPR implementation in other industries. It employs strategies of inquiry such as sequential. concurrent and transformative mixed method and both close and open ended. and procedures of research that best suits the purposes of the study. Accordingly. case study. techniques. 1998 used quantitative research design. 2005. researchers have a freedom to choose the methods. several studies on BPR in terms of research design. 1999 used qualitative research design. quantitative and qualitative designs have their own inherent advantages and disadvantages. The findings are subjective that the inquirer inductively generates meanings from the data collected in the field (Creswell 2009.. p. the concept of mixing different methods originated in 1959 when Campbell and Fisk used multimethods to study validity of psychological traits. Having these.grounded theory. standardized and emerging. used quantitative and qualitative designs. p. 11-13). researchers like Tennant and Yi-Chieh. On the other hand. The reasons for mixing methods includes to triangulate data source for the sake of convergence across quantitative and qualitative methods. mixed method design involves philosophical assumptions to use the mix of quantitative and qualitative designs (Creswell 2009. 2007. researchers like Ahmad et al. Allen and Fiefield. O‟Neill and Sohal. Thus. mixed methods design emanated to utilize the advantages and to tackle the disadvantages of the two designs. 14). Sohail et al. Pragmatic worldview uses pluralistic approach to drive knowledge about the problem. text and image data that are open-ended and emerging. Balaji..

not available at the university premises (e. the study will use the mixed methods design to get the benefits of mixed methods design.1 and 1. survey will be used to identify factors that affect BPR implementation.2. because all team members. And in a second phase. in the first phase of the study. and data analysis and interpretation. variables. data will be collected one point in time (cross sectional). mixed method design will be used to study the Samara University‟s challenges to implement BPR.These practices suggest that both types of research designs could be applicable to study BPR implementation. results from the first phase will be used further to better understand the magnitude of identified factors. 17 . Survey design To gather data relevant for the identification of factors that affect BPR implementation. as indicated in chapter 1. The rationale to adopt survey strategy is the economy of the design and the rapid turnaround in data collection. sampling design. Particularly.1 Research method adopted As indicated earlier. 3.1 Quantitative feature of mixed method In a first phase. survey instrument.1. the quantitative feature of research design will identify factors that affect BPR implementation at Samara University. sequential explanatory strategy will be used. research questions and items on a survey.3. 3.2. 211). This strategy is characterized by the collection and analysis of quantitative data in a first phase of research followed by the collection and analysis of qualitative data in a second phase that builds on the result of the initial quantitative results (Creswell 2009. The following sections discussed the proposed method adopted. Thus. Beside this. The following sections discussed the quantitative and qualitative feature of mixed methods that will be used during the study. p. In this strategy. the later one (rapid turnaround) will fits the sample that will be selected from BPR redesign and implementation team members. the study will employ survey strategy through self administered structure questionnaires with BPR project team members of the University. to get a brief understanding of the research problem and to benefit from the method adopted.g. Thus. section 1. except one individual. The following subsections presented the strategy of inquiry.

for now tentative sample questionnaire provided in Appendix II.educational leave).in number twenty-three individuals. So. Survey instrument The questionnaire instrument will be developed from comprehensive literature review that related to BPR implementation and its barriers to implement successfully. 148). So. unless the University implemented BPR. the study proposed to select respondents based on the convenience sample and respondents will be selected who are willing and available to complete the survey. p. the University redesigned five processes. Thus. the cover page of the instrument will indicate the purpose of the study. all service providers and users will not be the population. Beside this. p. Thus. 2005). in this study due to small number of population (23 in numbers) the sample selection will tend to use non-probability sample. As Babble (1990) noted non-probability sample in which respondents are chosen based on their convenience and availability (cited in Creswell 2009. the importance of their 18 . the study population units will constitutes University‟s service providers and users. As indicated in the chapter 1. the respondents will be surveyed using e-mail questionnaires to reach dispersed geographical area that the respondents reside. Although in quantitative design to select sample advised to use random sampling (Creswell 2009. However. In addition. defining the study population and study units depend on the research problem and study objectives (Walonick. 148). This will help to identify factors related during the redesign phase and implementation phase as challenges. the population study units constitute individuals directly involved with BPR project and the sampling frame ought to be list of individuals involved with the University BPR project . Sample design To study the University‟s BPR project. the population stratified in to two groups before selecting the sample – redesign team members and implementation team members. That is one individual used to as redesign and implementation team member. and the other one is selected only used to as redesign team member. The survey instrument will be closed ended designed to collect quantitative data. wherein two individual from each five processes (ten individuals) will be selected based on the convenience.

8. Email addresses of respondents will be acquired from the University Human Resource Department. 9. 5. research questions and items on a survey Data analysis and interpretation At the first glance. and 11 Independent variable: Research question: What are the Factors related to implement BPR challenging factors that the university faces to implement BPR? Table 1: Variables. research questions and items on a survey The following table presents the independent variable and dependent variable of the study with the research questions and items on the survey instrument. procedures to mark their responses and emphasize to return the instrument within the response period with. 16. 17. For the purpose of obtaining information for the quantitative research question. 13. Variables. And in order to ensure highest response rate.responses to the study along with the confidentiality. respondents will be asked their willingness to participate to the study through email letter before the questionnaire emailed. 10. otherwise via phone. the survey responses will be analyzed through statistical tools. 15. the numbers of sample who did and did not returned the questionnaire will be reported with tabular presentation in terms of numbers and percentages to describe respondents and non-respondents. 22. 21. To check the response bias. questionnaires will be forwarded to the respondents through email. 19. After getting their willingness and questionnaire developed. 20. and 24 Dependent variable: Challenges to implement BPR Research question: Why Samara University does face challenges to implement BPR? Survey instrument question: 3. if they are out of the home country. respondent – non-respondent check will be employed and all non-respondents will be communicated through email letter. Variable name Research questions Items of the survey Survey instrument question: 12. 6. 23. To analyze responses of „Yes/No‟ and „Agree/Disagree‟ frequency percentage will be used to get the rated 19 .

2.responses. Before conducting the interview. the connection or mixing will occur between quantitative data analysis and the data collection of second phase research. Codes which have been applied to the data then act as interpretations. After getting their willingness and schedules. In this regard. Accordingly. Potentially the themes will be broken down into fragments. In a first phase quantitative data will be gathered through questionnaires survey. the identified factors that impede the BPR implementation will be further used to better understand their magnitude as challenges to implement BPR at Samara University. 3. Therefore.1. in qualitative design the sampling design is purposeful sampling design.sequential explanatory strategy. the respondents‟ willingness will be asked first. the interviewee will be the university president and two vice presidents. To gather data for the second phase. and will be assigned codes based on topic or theme. 20 . the analysis of quantitative data and its results will help to prepare qualitative interview questions. The data further will be used in a second phase of qualitative research. Thus three interviews will be held. the researcher will interview the respondents at Samara University using interview protocol and by making handwriting notes. Hence.2 Qualitative feature of mixed method As earlier mentioned this study will employ two phase. Tables and graphs will be used to give a clear view of the distribution of the responses that will be given by the respondents to each question in the questionnaire. the questions will be used could be emerging to ensure all key areas of the topic to be covered. mean and regression analysis. Qualitative data collected from respondents will be noticed in to appropriate contexts and written down. As well as data collected will be analyzed through simple percentage analysis. case study strategy will be used to inquire the research problem through face-to-face interviews with selected respondents.

4. Chapter three will presents both the quantitative and qualitative features of the mixed method data analysis and interpretation sequentially.3 Final structure of the study The final structure of the study report will have four chapters. 4. So. 4. chapter four will presents conclusion and recommendation.2 Delimitation of the study The paper will provide a framework for future research to explore the University‟s BPR project along with the documents prepared by the redesign team members in which this proposed study not considered. Also it will add value to those who would like to pursue their research on BPR.5 Budgeted cost Most often. approximately Birr 3. because the introduction of BPR in Ethiopia is a recent phenomenon. statement of problems. 21 . And all tasks will be performed by the researcher and the tasks includes from securing funds to the final report communication. The detailed tasks presented in the appendix section of „3‟. final structure. the study will take about three months starting from September 2010 to the end of November 2010.4 Work plan Generally. delimitation. purposes of the study and report structure. Finally. and budgeted cost of the study 4. 4.Chapter 4: Significant. Chapter one will presents the introduction part of the study that constitutes overview. Chapter two will presents comprehensive literature review with theory and empirical study.1 Significant of the study The subject matter of this proposed study at the completion will benefits different classes of groups including the management body of the University. it is appropriate to have fund to undertake the study.593 budgeted to conduct the study and the detailed cost breakdowns presented in appendix „4‟. because it will draws attention where corrective action is necessary to implement BPR. work plan.

pp. Volume 23.451 – 469.752 – 757.87 – 112. 19 Iss: 9.794 – 801 www. Emerald Publisher: Journal of Management Development. Working Paper No. 2 http://www.htm?issn=14637154&volume =5&issue=1&articleid=843427&show=pdf.emeraldinsight. viewed in June 2010 Attaran. sue=10&articleid=865108&show=pdf. „Business process reengineering: critical success factors in higher education‟. and Fifield./ / 3/paper56. http://www.. http://pdfserve. M 2007.pdf. Vol. Vol.. A and Zairi. M 1999. viewed in June 2010 Ahmad. „Business Process Reengineering and University Organisation: a normative approach from the Spanish case‟.com/journals. H.informaworld. Information Research. Issue 1. G 1999. Emerald Publisher: Management Decision. M 2000. B and Canteli. Emerald Publisher: Business Process Management Journal. pp. pp. 3. 4 No. Francis. N 1999. Emerald Publisher: Business Process Management Journal.pdf. viewed in June 2010 Allen.Reference Adenso-Diaz. viewed in June 2010 22 . „Why does reengineering fail? A practical guide for successful implementation‟. viewed in June 2010 Al-Mashari.viewed in June 2010 Attaran.htm?issn=14637154&volume=13&is sue=3&articleid=1610786&show=pdf. M and Wood.pdf. pages 63 – 73. „Reengineering an Educational Institute: a Case Study in New Zealand‟. http://www. M 2004. 37 Iss: 10. 5 Iss: 1. „How to succeed at reengineering‟. M and put/. A F 2001. D 713678150. pp.html.Balaji_WP2. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management. http://www. „BPR implementation process: an analysis of key success and failure factors‟. viewed in June 2010 Vol. Vol. 13 Iss: 3. „Re-engineering change in higher education‟.emeraldinsight.

viewed in June 2010 Vol. Education Resource Information Center: Forty-Fourth Annual Conference of the Southeastern Regional Association of Physical Plant Administrators of Universities and Colleges Norfolk.16 – 27 http://www. M S. „The New Industrial Engineering: Information Technology and Business Process Redesign‟. Nicholas Brealey Publishing: Allen and Urwin. London O‟Neill. MIT Sloan Management Review. J 2006. Virginia.279 – 23 . viewed in June 2010 Creswell J W 2009.Casey. http://www. pp.pdf.. United State of America Davenport. http://www3. http://www.uma. T H and Short. „Business Process Re-engineering: The Unavoidable Challenge‟. 1998. 832-864. Harvard Business Review. pp. Qualitative. Obliterate‟. Emerald Publisher: International Journal of Operations & Production /the-new-industrial-engineering-information-technology-and-business-process -redesign/ viewed in June 2010 Hammer. viewed in June 2010 Revenaugh.emeraldinsight. J M 1993. http://sloanreview.ed. M and Champy. Vol. M 1990. „Restructuring a higher education institution: A case study from a developing country‟. „Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution‟. Move Over TQM--Here Comes BPR‟. J E 1990. 18 No. Daud. 9/10. third edition. quantitative and mixed methods approaches. viewed in June 2010 Hammer. Vol. „A Strategic Business Improvement Model for Higher Education. SAGE Publication „Reengineering Work: Don't Automate.pdf. P and Sohal. „Business process reengineering: application and success – an Australian study‟. 20 Iss: 4. Emerald Publisher: Management Decision.eric.htm?issn=0025-1747&volum e=32&issue=7&articleid=864723&show=pdf. Emerald Publisher: International Journal of Educational Management. L 1994. 32 Iss: 7.% J M 1995. A S 1998. S and Rajadurai.htm?issn=01443577&volume=18&is sue=9/10&articleid=849138&show=pdf.

290. viewed in June 2010 Walonick.pdf. „Successful predictors of business process reengineering (BPR) in financial services‟.pdf.boun. M. 17 Iss: arch-papers/ Vol. S D 2005. http://govinfo. viewed in June 2010 United States General Accounting Office (GAO) 1997. Production Economics 35–50. Accounting and Information Management Division. Emerald Publisher: The TQM „Business Process Reengineering Assessment Guide‟.tw/~psuhjw/paper/bpr-7.htm#chapter-1 24 . P and O‟Neill. The application of business process reengineering in the UK. pp.library. I 2004. C and Yi-Chieh W 2005. Int. J. http://www. viewed in June 2010 Terziovskia.statpac. www.htm?issn=0951354X &volume =20&issue=4&articleid=1556824&show=pdf&PHPSESSID=oo9vdonkkvlb9l http://www.htm?issn=0954-478X&volume =17&issue=6&articleid=1524121&show=pdf. viewed in June 2010 Tanoglu. Fitzpatrick.doc. P „Business Process Reengineering: A literature survey report‟. viewed in June 2010 Tennant.unt. „Elements of a research proposal and report‟. – http://www.mis.

1999) 25 .Appendix: 1.Summary of key success/failure factors in BPR Figure 1: A summary of key success/failure factors in BPR (source: Al-Mashari and Zairi.

Survey instrument BPR implementation challenges survey The study is entitled “Challenges to implement BPR at Samara University”. Which one best describe your …….Appendix: 2. Example of marking procedure: 1. and as much as possible „within three weeks return the questionnaire‟ by the address given bellow. Addis Ababa. ZZZZZZZ Thank you in advance Naod Mekonnen E-mail: naod@mail2rap. XXXXXX b.(if your choice is “b” mark “b” and save the document) a. who is currently M. The questionnaire results will be recorded namelessly and confidentiality will be preserved. Responses name will not be included in the study report. to carry out this study sample of BPR redesign and implementation team members selected because the study needs your participation to respond for the questionnaire and the result obtain from the questionnaire further studied to better understand the magnitudes of challenges that the university faced to implement BPR. Ethiopia. The purpose of the study is to identify the factors that lead to face challenges to implement BPR and to better understand the magnitude of the identified factors at Samara University.Sc. The researcher is Naod Mekonnen. Marking and return procedures: To mark your responses please use „text highlighter‟ or „font color‟. At the end of the study the summery of the study will be forwarded to you through your e-mail address. in Accounting and Finance student in Addis Ababa University. 26 . YYYYYY c.

Which category best describe your position during BPR project of the . Which one best describe the time frame to implement BPR full at the university a. More than four years 3. University‟s employees other than redesign team members d. Academic area 27 . Administrative area b. Increased use of human resources in the process 5.two years c. Between one year . Which of the followings are expectation of changes as a result of BPR implementation (you can choose more than one items). Strongly agree 4. Decreased process time cycle c. Increased use of technology in processes d. BPR project of the University being too costly undertake. Redesign team member b. Which area of the University difficult to change through BPR? a. a. Between three years – to – four years e. Who is responsible for the implementation of BPR (you can choose more than one items)? a. Redesign team member and implementation team member 2. External consultants 6. a. Redesign team members selected as implementation team members b. Cost reduction of the processes b.1. Less than one year b. Top managements c. a. Not strongly agree b. Not agree c. Between two years – to – three years d. Agree d.

Not agree 9. The reason for BPR project initiatives of the University caused by the felt need of change of high demand for the services offered by the University. Strongly agree 12. Dou you agree that if the university implemented BPR successfully will benefit from better performance? a. Agree b. a. Not strongly agree b. No 28 . Yes b. Not strongly agree b. a.7. Yes b. Yes b. a. The university‟s processes extremely redesigned that in turn leads to face challenges to implement BPR. The university being convinced the need for BPR before BPR project starts. a. a. Strongly agree 8. No 11. The fundamental source of difficulty for the university struggling to implement BPR is the fact that processes get reengineering and management does not. Not agree c. No 10. Agree d. University‟s employees‟ resistance to change and their fears about job displacement need to be alleviated and explained for success of BPR implementation. Not agree c. Agree d.

Do you think that existing infrastructure of the University paused the implementation process. Total involvements of top management who have real power to change absolutely necessary to implement. Disagree 15. a. Failure to implement BPR caused by lack of support demonstrated by the University highest level management a. Yes b. Disagree 16. a. Yes b. No 14. Do you think that the organizational cultural change initiate for the success of BPR implementation at the University. Customer feed back used during the redesign phase a. Agree b. Yes b. What role has information technology played to the University redesigned processes? a. Enabling role d. No 18. No 29 . Minimal role c. No role b. a.13. Extreme driving force 19. Lack of organizational communication contributes to the challenges of BPR implementation. Yes b. a. Agree b. No 17.

20. a. Not strongly agree b. Not agree c. Ineffective BPR teams contribute to the failure of BPR project. Not agree c. Agree d. Not agree c. There is little chance of implementing BPR at the University. Not strongly agree b. Strongly agree 30 . regulations. a. Strongly agree 24. a. Agree b. Strongly agree 23. Strongly agree 22. Strongly agree 25. a. Not strongly agree b. a. Insufficient trainings on BPR implementation contribute to the failure of BPR project. Existing governmental proclamations. Not agree c. Disagree 21. Not agree c. Not strongly agree b. Agree d. Lack of information technology infrastructure results BPR implementation failure. Lack of financial resources contributes to the failure of BPR. Not strongly agree b. a. Agree d. Agree d. Agree d. rules and directive contribute to the failure of BPR.

2010 Oct. 2010 Nov.Work plan of the study Activities/tasks Duration in months Sep.Appendix: 3 . 2010 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Securing fund Comprehensive literature review Developing the final questionnaire Acquiring email addresses and sample selection Asking respondents willingness to participate through email Emailing questionnaires to respondent and receiving questionnaire response Quantitative data analysis and interpretation Qualitative interview question preparation Asking the interviewee for willingness Researcher voyage from Addis Ababa to Samara Conducting interview with the university president and two vice presidents Researcher voyage from Samara to Addis Ababa Qualitative data analysis and interpretation Final report writing along with conclusion and recommendation Communication the final finding Gantt Chart1: Detail work plan 31 .

storage and retrieval computer to the researcher till the final report communication 2 From Addis Ababa to Samara and vice versa to interview University presidents at Samara University 3 Since the University located in very hot part of Ethiopia. 32 .Appendix: 4 .Budgeted cost of the study Items Measurement Paper Pen Pencil Laptop rental1 Printing Transportation2 Per dium3 Mobile card4 Sub total Contingency (10 % of subtotal) Grand total Table 2: Detail budgeted cost 1 realm 1 dozen ½ dozen 3 month 60 pages 2 voyage 10 days 1 card Price (Birr) 60 24 12 15birr/day 2birr/page 200 birr/voyage 120 Birr/day 100 Birr/ card Total price (Birr) 60 24 12 1350 120 400 1200 100 Birr 3266 326.6 Birr 3592.6 1 To have portable data processing. it is appropriate to have desert perdium 4 To communicate with the University Human Resource Department to get email addresses of the team members and to communicate to get the willingness of the presidents.