You are on page 1of 16

© International Academic Research Journal of Business and Management Vol No.1, Issue No.6, Page no.1-16.

ISSN Number : 2227-1287

Developing a Framework to Identify the Factors Affecting the Measurement of Organization Readiness for Business Process Reengineering Implementation an Exploratory Factor Analysis Method (EFA)
Hamid.Shahbandarzadeh Department of Industrial Management, Persian Gulf University, Bushehr, Iran Shahbandarzadeh@pgu.ac.ir Khodakaram.Salimifard Department of Industrial Management, Persian Gulf University, Bushehr, Iran Salimifard@pgu.ac.ir Farid.Saeedi Department of Industrial Management, Persian Gulf University, Bushehr, Iran Saeedi.farid@gmail.com

ABSTRACT Results of business processes reengineering (BPR) projects in Iran and many other countries show that the most necessary and fundamental changes on processes do not implement and remain only as a suggestion. Therefore, before attempting to redesign and re-engineering business processes, variables and factors affecting the assessment of organizations readiness for the re-engineering process should be identified in order to improve conditions and making good infrastructure to implement re-engineering projects. Therefore, the aim of this study is to identify the factors that affect the success or failure of re-engineering projects in organizations, and to develop a framework for assessing organization readiness for processes re-engineering implementation. This research uses exploratory factor analysis method and opinions of 229 of Iranian experts in the field of BPR to develop a framework for identifying the factors affecting the measurement of organizational readiness for BPR implementation. Keywords: Business Process Reengineering, Organization Readiness, Success Factors, Failure Factors, Exploratory Factor Analysis.

INTRODUCTION Today's world is a world of changes and mutation. These changes include all aspects of economic, social, political, and technological-based. Organizations that work in unstable conditions face with unexpected events that if they are not properly ready, needful and proportionate flexible to the current situation, they will lose their contest potency in the market. Therefore, organizations must be dynamic and have flexible structures to accommodate with external environment turbulences. Business Processes Reengineering (BPR) is one of the most widely used approaches to cope with

changes. Hammer and Champy introduced the concept of business processes re-engineering in 1990 in an article in the Harvard magazine for the first time (Hammer & Champy, 1993). BPR was defined as a radical redesign of processes to achieve salient improvements in cost, quality and service(Ozcelik, 2010). The base of the reengineering is thematic survey and removes the old rules and fundamental assumptions that plat the performance of the current business. Accordingly, anything that does not have contribution in the product efficacy is doomed to elimination(Ryan & Hurley, 2003). Generally, the main reasons for using re-engineering are external competitive pressures, reduction in

2

International Academic Research Journal of Business and Management

December

internal costs and to improve productivity (Tennant & Wu, 2005). Predictions in 1995 showed that if all American private companies proceeded tore-engineertheir processes, 25 million of workforcepopulation wouldreduceand it is the most important reason of personnel fray from this concept(Johnston, 1995).Researchresults revealed that in companiesthat utilized re-engineering,onlya fewhavebeen successful in implementing reengineering and most of companies failed (Hammer & Champy, 2001). In general, 70 percent of companies that went into re-engineering did not succeed to implement it. All these results indicate that this process has a high risk (Tarokh, Sharifi, & Nazemi, 2008). Since the lack of inattention to identify the factors affecting the measurement of organization readiness for processes re-engineering, it increases the cost and time required to implement reengineering projects.If a company is not ready, it leads to huge costs. Therefore, it is necessary to identify the indicators, variables and factors affecting the assessment of organizations readiness for the processes re-engineering to improve the situation and make appropriate infrastructure ready to implement BPR project. This study, therefore,intends to overview the researches done in this area and to identify the factors affecting the success and failure of reengineering project implementation. Its objective is to develop a framework for measuring the organization readiness for processes reengineering implementation and itprovides some prerequisiteto successfully implement BPR in organizations. LITERATURE REVIEW It is essential to carefully examine the factors that challenge the future actions for change before designing and re-engineering business processes. Various available methods for re-engineering implementation are not interchangeable because none of these methods completely covers requirements and major prerequisites for successful

implementation of BPR. Many articles have been running the definition of the re-engineering nature and its implementation processes, but they ignore to clarify what is important in successful reengineering implementation and risk management resulting from BPR implementation. Following, we examine key factors in the success or failure of BPR projects. STRATEGIC FACTORS Strategic factors are most important factors affecting the measurement of organizations readiness for processes re-engineering implementation. Some researchers mention that the most important reason for the failure ofBPR is the lack of correlation between organization and organization strategic objectives. Terziovski and others (Terziovski, Fitzpatrick, & O’Neill, 2003) studied the Australian financial services sector firms which engage in re-engineering. They deduced that the strategy and customer orientation are the most important factors in the success of BPR projects. Paper and Chang (2005) believe that factors related to organization vision, such as development, prophecy, pitch and flexibility, are essential for the successful reengineering program. Lack of good strategy is one of the main obstacles to successful reengineering in the organizations (Attaran, 2004). Other researchers such as Khong& Richardson(2003), Wu(2002), and Mcadam(2000)emphasized the importance of strategic factors, such as prospective, market environment and beneficiaries analysis, and mutual relation between organization view and BPR goals and view. PROJECT MANAGEMENT FACTORS BPR requires planning and time scheduling, enough budget, and accurate control as every projects need. BPR projects should be based on primal time schedule to prevent any time delay in BPR implementation (Hutto & R. Kasich, 1994). Lack of efficient planning, inadequate resources in executive stage, and lack of utilizing project management techniques are important BPR

2012

Hamid.Shahbandarzadeh, Khodakaram.Salimifard and Farid.Saeed

3

failure factors(Tarokh, Sharifi, & Nazemi, 2008; Hammer & Champy, 2001). Project management should cover all required activities and resources at any time during the lifecycle of the project (Obara Magutu, Onserio Nyamwange, & Kiplimo Kaptoge, 2010). Learning, careful redesign of processes and determination of performance key goals are other important factors in BPR project management (Xiang, 2010). Many other studies have emphasized on factors associated with project management in BPR success and failure (Herzog, Polajnar, & Tonchia, 2007; Ahmad, Francis, & Zairi, 2007; Salimifard, Abbaszadeh, & Ghorbanpur, 2010). INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FACTORS Information technology (IT) plays a vital role in the overall success of the initiative to re-engineer (Akhavan, Jafari, & Ali-Ahmadi, 2006). IT is the most effective factor in BPR success and failure (Love & Gunasekaranb, 1997; Goksoy, Ozsoy, & Vayvay, 2012; Herzog, Polajnar, & Tonchia, 2007; Abdolvand, Albadvi, & Ferdowsi, 2008; Paper & Chang, 2005; Ahmad, Francis, & Zairi, 2007). Having the right IT infrastructure is a vital factor in the successful implementation of BPR (Obara Magutu, Onserio Nyamwange, & Kiplimo Kaptoge, 2010) because unlike other approaches such as TQM, BPR is heavily based on IT. Attaran(2004) believes that IT role is very important in three stages: a) before BPR implementation, b) implementation stage and c)after BPR implementation. FACTORS RELATED TO TOP MANAGEMENT Top management performs the leader role in process management paradigm with effective cultural change and elimination of obstacles(Hutto & R. Kasich, 1994). Many of reported failures in re-engineering planning caused by lack of top management support and disinclination towards change (Adenso-Diaz & Canteli, 2001).It is mentioned that elected leadership is one of the biggest barriers to successful implementation of BPR. It is important for a manager to have a proper mindset in addition to his management

authority(Hammer & Champy, 2001).Changing cultural attitudes, understanding and acceptance of the selected orientation, face-to-face communication, and education are other committed top management tasks(ONeill & S.Sohal, 1998). Sutcliffe(1997)obtained two important results in his research on the relationship between leader behavior and the results of re-engineering; 1) successful leaders of BPR projects use leadership styles that have better fitness with vital factors; 2) successful leaders of BPR projects do their leadership duties in a very balanced way.Abdolvand and others (Abdolvand, Albadvi, & Ferdowsi, 2008) believe that sufficient knowledge about IT projects, realistic expectations of the BPR results, and frequent communication with BPR users and team are the most essential tasks for top management in BPR implementation. Other researchers such as Wu(2003),Khong and Richardson(2003), Salimifard and colleagues (Salimifard, Abbaszadeh, & Ghorbanpur, 2010), andTerziovski and others(Terziovski, Fitzpatrick, & O’Neill, 2003)emphasized the top management role in the success and failure of BPR. CULTURAL FACTORS Cultural factors are among influential factors of BPR project performance. In many previous BPR projects, some resistances in the organization against re-engineering were due to cultural factors that would cause organization failure if not to be considered (Warren & David, 2006; Attaran, 2000; HRFocus, 1994). BPR problems and restrictions in developing countries such as Iran are more related to organizational and managerial culture and not to technical or work capabilities (Salimifard, Abbaszadeh, & Ghorbanpur, 2010). Mainly traditional conservative organizations are task-oriented and vertically structured while top manager rarely deals with fundamental changes. Employees do not feel that they belong to the organization and avoid new experience and risks. Therefore, there is no attention to long-term needs of customers, and flexibility is minimized (Sepehri, 2005). These changes led to more flat organizational hierarchy or larger control area in

4

International Academic Research Journal of Business and Management

December

organizations, more productivity and employees satisfaction(Goksoy, Ozsoy, & Vayvay, 2012). Yu et al. (Yu, Yi, Wang, & Zhao, 2010) believe that organizational culture plays two important roles in the organization. Firstly, it fosters unity and makes a good communication mechanism in which they cooperate better with high productivity. Secondly, it helps organization to be consistent with external environment in order to train employees the daily responsibilities to work faster and become consistent with changes in exterior environment. Other researchers focus on the cultural factors in investigation of the amount of BPR success (Haghighat & Mohammadi, 2012; Ahmad, Francis, & Zairi, 2007; F.Jarrar & M.Aspinwall, 1999; Terziovski, Fitzpatrick, & O’Neill, 2003). METHODOLOGICAL FACTORS Methodological factors focus on attempts to change, support, set goals, measurement, modeling, customer orientation, BPR team and its performance (Kyung Sung & Gibson, 1998). In fact, methodology is a combination of organized methods, techniques and tools to direct reengineering project towards success by helping to solve problems in this risky trend (Vakola & Rezgui, 2000). Factors such as suitable guide, commitment, orientation, continuous monitoring, customer support, process- oriented, and generally BPR performance are involved in this collection (Paper & Chang, 2005; Kyung Sung & Gibson, 1998; Hammer & Champy, 1993; Davenport, 1993; Belmonte & Murray, 1993; Hall & Wade, 1993). Certainly, selection of appropriate techniques and methodology based on organization conditions for BPR implementation has a verysignificantimpact in its success or failure. FACTORS RELATED TO THE CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS Human resources play a vital role in improving organizational processes (Abdolvand, Albadvi, & Ferdowsi, 2008) and since business processes should be run by human resources, considering this factor is among most important elements in changing processes because employees resistance

against changes will cause project failure (Paper & Chang, 2005). Previous approaches for BPR success should be changed. Re-engineering is not only changing the processes, rather it is a change in all sections of organization. Without change management process, no improvement can be enforced in any organization(Tissari & Heikkila, 2001). Changes in rewarding system, changing of organization structure to a flat state, improved communications and decision-making, and training or empowerment of employees are all among factors related to this category (Fortune Magazine, 1998; Khong & Richardson, 2003; Kyung Sung & Gibson, 1998; AL-Mashari & Zairi, 1999; Abdolvand, Albadvi, & Ferdowsi, 2008; Jeston & Nelis, 2008). METHODOLOGY This study is a survey research. Considering sampling performed in a period, this study is cross section study. General model of this study includes seven main categories described in previous sections. Exploratory factor analysis was used to classify and name each factors related to each category. The purpose of the factor analysis is to reduce the volume of data and determine the most effective variables in shaping phenomenon(Dobni, 2008). DATA COLLECTION A questionnaire was used for data collection. The questionnaire contained 80 questions for the seven categories of factors that affect the measurement of organization’sreadiness to implement the BRR. It was designed for exploratory factor analysis. Some of the questions in the questionnaire were in the form of compilation and others were designed with the previous articles help. 15 experts in quality management and industrial engineering in Tehran confirmed the validity of the questionnaire. The sample size for factor analysis should be between 40 ­ 400(Hanafizadeh & Osouli, 2011). Random cluster sampling method was carried out in this study. Namely, the overall sample divided into three industrial, scientific and services areas and

2012

Hamid.Shahbandarzadeh, Khodakaram.Salimifard and Farid.Saeed

5

then the questionnaire was distributed among countries and institutions of higher education randomly. In general, 500 questionnaires were sent electronically to Iranian professionals among whom 183 questionnaires completed electronically and 46 were completed face to face. A total number of 229 questionnaires were used for exploratory factor analysis. Data collection was conducted in August and September of 2012. EXPLORATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS In exploratory factor analysis, the researcher intends to discover the underlying structure of a large set of variables. In other words, the researcher has no initial theory. SPSS v19was used for exploratory factor analysis. The following conditions should be observed for exploratory factor analysis: 1. KMO coefficient: this coefficient indicates sampling adequacy that its value is always between zero and one. The result is acceptable if KMO is more than 0.6. 2. Significance of Bartlett’s test: it is a minimum requirement for factor analysis. 3. Matrix coefficient is greater than zero. ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS Cronbach's Alpha method was used in this study to assess the reliability of the questionnaire. In this case, each statement of the seven major parts of factors were analyzed separately in order to determine the scores of statement related to each factor have accurate measurement in explaining the actual score of responded. Information about measuring Cronbach's Alpha for each of seven categories is presented in Table 1. It should be noted that Cronbach's Alpha value of all eight statement of the questionnaire was generally calculated as 0.973 that indicated high level of reliability in the research questionnaire.Table 2 shows the scope and frequency of respondent. As already mentioned, the main measuring factors of organizations readiness to implement BPR were classified into seven main categories. Hence, exploratory factor analysis purpose is to identify latent measures of each of these main categories.

Table 3 represents KMO coefficient values, Bartlett’s test and determining correlation matrix for each of the seven categories. STRATEGIC FACTORS According to high amount of KMO that is above 0.6 and obtained determining value of correlation coefficient bigger than zero, the results are acceptable. Moreover, it is worth nothing that finding rotation matrix of factors has been obtained with 5 replications. As data in Table 4 represents, 60.459 percent of changes in explained by three new factors. The eigenvalue in finding of the rotated matrix have been obtained for first factor as 3.069, for the second factor as 1.979, and for the third factor as 1.602. Naming of the factors in the theoretical literature and statement that have taken place in the same categories has been performed. Now, three outputs for statements concerning strategic factors should be named and explained that will be investigated in next part. Vision and Strategy The first category of statements classified based on the type of exploratory factor analysis and theoretical review of literature. The statement is called "prospects and strategy". Five definitions of prospects and strategy subcategories are "landscape changes with the load factor of 0.834", "identification and providing appropriate strategies of changing with load factor of 0.846", "re-engineering strategy consistent with the overall strategy of the organization with factor load of 0.528", "commitment to changing prospect with factor loading of 0.696" and "flexibility of changing prospects with factor load of 0.547". Top- down approach The second factor extracted from related statements was called "top-down approach". A major change must start from the top level. It is clear that re-engineering never be implemented in bottom up approach. Undoubtedly, top manager of an organization with a holistic view

6

International Academic Research Journal of Business and Management

December

of the process and a clear vision of re-engineering should manage organization during changes and re-engineering. Three statements of "requirement of re-engineering of top top with a loading factor of 0.849", "cooperation of middle top managers in re-engineering with a factor load of 0.568" and "announcement of guidelines from top managers of the organization with factor load of 0.828" are in this category. Identification of stakeholders Since business environment is continuously changing and competitive environment will determine the direction of the markets, so identification of the market and stakeholders, analyzing of environment and prediction of the possible changes play an important role in long term re-engineering planning. Statements of "market analysis and identifying stakeholders" and "prioritizing stakeholder expectations in reengineering plan" with load factors of 0.701 and 0.884, respectively, were in this category. FACTOR ANALYSIS MANAGEMENT FACTORS OF PROJECT

The main causes include lack of proper planning and monitoring of project resources. Statements of "effective planning and using project management techniques of 0.721", "regular reporting of project progress of 0.710", “proper timing of projects of 0.797, "regular project monitoring and correction of 0.732"and "avoiding long delays in project of 0.629" are placed in this category. Allocation of resources Lack of allocation of necessary resources for the re-engineering is one of the other reasons for its failure. This includes skilled work force and capital resources and tools needed to implement project. Existence of unnecessary workforces and lack of skills and education will not only stops project progress but also people will be disappointed. Allocation of sufficient funds to advance the project in accordance with the scheduled program will be crucial. In addition, the role of top management to guide the process in the right direction is very important. Based on the results of exploratory factor analysis, the factor of "allocation of required resources" is formed by statements of "having enough resources with loading factor of 0.812", "diversity of project resources (use of consultants, users, customers, suppliers, etc.) with a load factor of 0.585" and "Allocation of resources consistent with the estimated load factor of 0.664". FACTOR ANALYSIS OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (IT) FACTORS Since determining the correlation matrix was 0.002 and the other values of indicators were acceptable based on obtained information, so results of factor analysis are acceptable. According to statistical data of Table 4, it can be seen that 60.321 percent of changes are presented by two new factors that are somehow acceptable. Eigenvalue of first factor in rotated matrix is 3.703 and for the second factor is 3.536. IT knowledge and resources As mentioned before, one of the most important differences of process re-engineering with other

According to Table3, the determining value of correlation coefficient matrix is greater than zero and other indices are in acceptable range. It should be noted that the rotated matrix of factors is obtained with three iteration. As it can be seen in Tables 4, eigenvalue of two new factors is greater than 1. Therefore, it is acceptable for factor analysis. Eigenvalue of the first and second factors was 4.140 and 1.978, respectively. Generally, 55.616 percent of the total variation is explained by these two factors that are acceptable in factor analysis. Planning and project control The first factor in a series of factors is called "project planning and project control". These factors represent a set of statements regarding the management of re-engineering. It should be noted that one of the major reasons for the failure of re-engineering projects is that they are too long.

2012

Hamid.Shahbandarzadeh, Khodakaram.Salimifard and Farid.Saeed

7

development approaches such as TQM is the important role of IT in its success. In order to have a successful process re-engineering, IT opportunities should be used effectively based on sufficient resources and update knowledge of individuals in the field of IT. Statements of “having databases and appropriate information systems with load factor of 0.741", "sourcing and suitable investment in IT with load factor of 0.734", "appropriate use of software with load factor of 0.755", "developed organizational information system with load factor of 0.634" and "synergetic use of IT and redesigning methods of process with load factor of 0.549" are related to this category based on obtained results of factor analysis. IT infrastructure Before implementingBPR, we should ask whether there are appropriate software and hardware facilities available. To what extent the technology infrastructure of the organization can meet the process reengineering requirements. One of basic conditions of process reengineering is the availability of a powerful IT infrastructure. Statements of "having appropriate IT infrastructures with load factor of 0.615", "development of abilities of IT unit with load factor of 0.758", "IT infrastructure consistent with process reengineering strategies with load factor of 0.728", "appropriate measurement of effective IT infrastructure in business process reengineering with load factor of 0.815"and "appropriate design of IT network with load factor of 0.767" are classified in the IT infrastructure category. FACTOR ANALYSIS MANAGEMENT RELATED TO TOP

matrix is 3.820, for second factor are 2.718 and for third factor is 1.710. Commitment and leadership One of the most important factors in successful implementation of BPR is commitment and leadership of top managers during change operation. It is considered thattop management commitment is a requirement for successful reengineering(Hammer & Champy, 2001). According to obtained results, statements of "planning, guiding and coordinating of resources by top management with load factor of 0.640", "cooperation of top management with load factor of 0.606","top manager support during operation with load factor of 0.738" and "braveness of top management towards project failure with load factor of 0.585" are classified in the factor category of "commitment and management". Knowledge and wisdom Manager who has no understanding of how to re-engineering or someone who has no knowledge in this field cannot manage BPR during implementationphase. Top manager of organization not only should have a good understanding of re-engineering but also should clarify it for staff. According to the obtained results of factor analysis, statements of "sufficient knowledge of top manager about reengineering with load factor of 0.659", "integrated management approach to re-engineering in all units with load factor of 0.575" , "tendency of top manager to accept and perform suggestions of reengineering team with load factor of 0.736", "having an understanding of reengineering with load factor of 0.601" and "effective management of risks by top manager with load factor of 0.848" are in this group. Open communications Top manager should have a clear commensuration with other units of the organization. He/she should communicate all the time and regularly with implementing team of the

According to high value of KMO and determining value of correlation coefficient bigger than one, obtained results are acceptable. Eigenvalues, variance percentage and cumulative variance percent are considered for new factors before and after rotation of factor loads in Table 4. Generally, 59.626 percent of changes are presented by three new factors. Eigenvalue of first factor in the rotated

8

International Academic Research Journal of Business and Management

December

project. He/she should have contact with staff, investigate their work progress, and make staff aware of project progress. According to related statements and theoretical literature review, the third factor in the collection of top manager factors is "open communication". Statements of "continuous communication of top manager with staff during the project with load factor of 0.763", "regular communication of top management with the team with load factor of 0.572" and "continuous communication of top manager with other stakeholders of the project with load factor of 0.639" are in this group. FACTOR ANALYSIS RELATED TO CULTURAL FACTORS According to Table3, determining value of correlation coefficient is 0.099 and other values of indicators are acceptable. Eigenvalues, variance percentage and cumulative variance percent are considered for new factors before and after rotation of factor loads in Table 4. Generally, 71.425 percent of changes are presented by two new factors. Eigenvalue of first factor in the rotated matrix is 2.679 and for second factor is 1.607. The climate environment of trust and collaborative

is that manager should not give up on these disagreements. Organization disagreement against re-engineering is a natural phenomenon. Therefore, another important factor for preparation of organization to perform reengineering project is intra-organizational preparations to accept changes. Various meetings and briefings are considered as the most important factors to remove this problem. According to obtained results of Table 4, 22 statements of this category are "creation of an effective culture for organizational changes with load factor of 0.806", "stimulation of the organization to accept change with load factor of 0.690" and "reduce the fear of individuals and units towards make changes". FACTOR ANALYSIS RELATED METHODOLOGICAL FACTORS TO

Determining value of correlation coefficient is 0.005 and other values of indicators are acceptable based on obtained data. Eigenvalues, variance percentage and cumulative variance percent are considered for new factors before and after rotation of factor loads in Table 4. Generally, 55.917 percent of changes are presented by two new factors. Eigenvalue of first factor in the rotated matrix is 3.682 and for second factor are 3.028. Process focus Re-engineering of processes requires processbased thinking, processes scope, graphical mapping, analysis based on local needs and expectations of customers. For this purpose, all required techniques and methods such as modeling and continuous monitoring should be used. In this study and according to the obtained results, statements of this category are: "having a process-based thinking among project team with load factor of 0.527", "performing an exact evaluation for identification and deletion of activities with no added value with load factor of 0.674","identification of purposes of developed function that requires development and reengineering with load factor of 0.788", "definition of main processes to achieve goals

When employees are not very intimate with each other in a corporate environment and there is no trust to top manager, then they will never cooperate in re-engineering project. It is necessary that all staff cooperate in the project. According to obtained results of factor analysis, available statements of this category are: "climate of trust and collaborative environment between staff with load factor of 0.810", "existence of cooperation culture among staff with load factor of 0.894", "giving more authority for attraction of staff with load factor of 0.905". Readiness and acceptance for change It is natural that each kind of new change in the organization environment will cause some opposing ideas and resistance. However, the important point

2012

Hamid.Shahbandarzadeh, Khodakaram.Salimifard and Farid.Saeed

9

and giving services to customers with load factor of 0.767", "attempt to change business processes not their modification with load factor of 0.720", "identification of the main customers, their needs and requirements consistent with future changes with load factor of 0.681", and finally,"effective training of modeling tools and business analysis with load factor of 0.533". Methodology and BPR team Selection of methodology is dependent on time, structural conditions and type of business. Moreover, using a capable BPR team is considered as the first step in successful re-engineering plan. BPR team should be selected among most expert people with high motivation and sufficient knowledge of the organization process. This team can be a combination of experts inside or outside the organization. According to obtained results of Table4, 25 statements in this category are: "using appropriate methods and tools for implementing re-engineering process with load factor of 0.564","allocation of best knowledgeable staffs for reengineering process with load factor of 0.792", "focus of this team on the results with load factor of 0.828", "using appropriate methodology in this process consistent with time, cost, structure and type of processes with load factor of 0.607", and "good identification of process re-designers based on their experiences with load factor of 0.677". FACTOR ANALYSIS RELATED TO CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS FACTORS According to Table3, determining value of correlation coefficient is 0.002 and other values of indicators are acceptable. Eigenvalues, variance percentage and cumulative variance percent are considered for new factors before and after rotation of factor loads in Table 4. Generally, 60.685 percent of changes are presented by three new factors. Eigenvalue of first factor in the rotated matrix is 3.064, for second factor is 2.763 and for third factor is 2.669. Rewarding and motivation systems Reengineering means changes in all organizational sections. In order to change one or several

processes, all other sections should be changed. Philosophy of re-engineering means a kind of fundamental change in the previous methods. One of the most important changes is changing of rewarding and motivation systems. All bureaucratic structures and mechanical environments should be removed in which staffs are working with senseless machines. Staff should be motivated to cooperate and share information in BPR project. Although some occupations may be eliminated after reengineering and some staffs become unsatisfied with this system. Traditional occupations should be removed in order to make fundamental changes. However, it does not mean to endanger staffs job security. According to the obtained results of the factor analysis, statements in this category are: "designing of a new rewarding system with load factor of 0.626", "encouraging of staffs to help changing process with load factor of 0.709", "maintenance of staffs job security with load factor of 0.672", "having training classes for staffs about the PBR with load factor of 0.543", "related evidence feedback with new processes for workforces with load factor of 0.574", "not using of intensive and bureaucratic methods of re-engineering with load factor of 0.594" and "preparation of conditions for an effective team work with load factor of 0.572". Participation and empowerment of employees As mentioned before, performance of reengineering will not be successful without cooperation of all organizational units. It is clear that those employees can help in present project that are completely familiar with this concept and understand its necessity. Another requirement of successful reengineering is to have skilled work forces with multiple responsibilities that can play a role in different organizational posts when some fundamental changes happen. According to obtained results of the factor analysis, statements of this category are: "empowerment of employees for multiple responsibilities with load factor of 0.758", "giving authority, motivation and responsibility to employees with load factor of 0.665","measurement of work for efficiency with

10

International Academic Research Journal of Business and Management

December

load factor of 0.773", "training of decision making skills and problem solving to employees with load factor of 0.785". Effective Communicative Channels It is not possible to coordinate different sections of an organization during project without an effective communication channel. Communications indifferent levels should be clear. Traditional methods such as excess correspondence should be avoided. Another way to accelerate communication between different sections is to make a network-based and information technology via Office Automation System. According to obtained results of factor analysis, statements of this category are "maximum use of network, computer and IT for acceleration of communication with load factor of 0.684", "communication development with external environment of shareholders with load factor of 0.860" and "making effective communication at all organizational levels with load factor of 0.648". Finally, theoretical model of this study can be seen in Figure 1. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Identification of capabilities, effective factors of failure or success of BPR project has had a huge impact on the results of this study. So far, in IranBPR is used in many organizations and institutions such as Railways, Customs, and Oil and Gas companies. However, the results of BPR projects remain as suggestions and not being used in practice. The main reason is that preparation of these organizations for BPR is not measured in the organizations and they do not pay attention to requirements, infrastructures and effective factors. After the completion of BPR project, following questions should be answered: 1. Is there any determined prospect and strategy provided by organization to perform BPR? 2. Is the project correctly planed and required resources are available? 3. Is IT infrastructure capable to support changes? 4. Is top manager prepared to manage, cooperate and support BPR changes?

5. Are necessary measures provided to manage, cooperate and support BPR changes? This study attempted to investigate effective factors of organizations readiness to perform BPR. As it is shown, this framework includes 7 general categories with 17 factors each of which are classified based on obtained results of factor analysis. Criteria to select the main categories were review of theoretical literature and amount of focus on each category as effective factors on BPR results. Next, a separate exploratory factor analysis performed to identify each subset of factors. It is suggested in this study to classify each main category with their subcategories to determine importance of each one in BPR implementation. REFERENCES Abdolvand, N., Albadvi, A., & Ferdowsi, Z. (2008). Assessing readiness for business process reengineering. Business Process Management Journal, 497-511. Adenso-Diaz, B., & Canteli, A. F. (2001). Business Process Reengineering and University Organisation: a normative approach from the Spanish case. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 63-73. Ahmad, H., Francis, A., & Zairi, M. (2007). Business process reengineering:critical success factors in higher education. Business Process Management Journal, 451-469. Akhavan, P., Jafari, M., & Ali-Ahmadi, A. R. (2006). Exploring the interdependency between reengineering and information technology by developing a conceptual model. Business Process Management Journal, 517-534. AL-Mashari, M., & Zairi, M. (1999). BPR implementation process: an analysis of key

2012

Hamid.Shahbandarzadeh, Khodakaram.Salimifard and Farid.Saeed

11

success and failure factors. Business Process Management Journal, 87-115. Attaran, M. (2000). Why does reengineering fail? A practical guide for successful implementation. Journal of Management Development , 794-801. Attaran, M. (2004). Exploring the relationship between information technology and business process reengineering. Information & Management, 585–596. Belmonte, R., & Murray, R. (1993). Getting Ready for Strategic Change: Surviving Business Process Redesign. Business Week. Davenport, T. (1993). Process Innovation: Reengineering Work Through Information Technology. Harvard Business School, Cambridge, MA. Dobni, C. B. (2008). Measuring innovation culture in organizations. European Journal of Innovation Management, 539-559. F.Jarrar, Y., & M.Aspinwall, E. (1999). Business process re-engineering: Learning from organizational experience. Total Quality Management, 173-186. Fortune Magazine. (1998). CSFs of BPR. Goksoy, A., Ozsoy, B., & Vayvay, O. (2012). Business Process Reengineering: Strategic Tool for Managing Organizational Change an Application in a Multinational Company. International Journal of Business and Management, 89-112. Haghighat, F., & Mohammadi, M. (2012). Designing the Model of Effective Factors on Acceptance of Business Process Reengineering(BPR) Case study: Isfahan Municipality. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 281289.

Hall, R., & Wade, J. (1993). How to Make Reengineering Really Work. Harvard Business Review, 119-131. Hammer, M., & Champy, J. (1993). Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution. Harper Business. Hammer, M., & Champy, J. (2001). Reengineering the corporation: a manifesto for business revolution. New York: 2nd Edition Harper Collins. Hanafizadeh,  P.,  &  Osouli,  E.  (2011).  Process selection in re-engineering by measuring degree of change. Business Process Management Journal, 284-310. Herzog, N., Polajnar, A., & Tonchia, S. (2007). Development and validation of business process reengineering(BPR) variables: a survey research in Slovenian companies. International Journal of Production Research, 5811–5834. HRFocus. (1994). Reengineering Succeeds Despite Tight Budgets. HRFocus. Hutto, E., & R. Kasich, J. (1994). Reengineering Organizations. Washington, USA: United States General Accounting Office, Results of a GAO Symposium. Jeston, J., & Nelis, J. (2008). Business process management: practical guidelines to successful implementation. Oxford: B u t t e r w o r t h Heinemann: Elsevier. Johnston, V. R. (1995). Increasing Quality and productivity: Strategic Planning, TQM, and Beyond. IOS Press. Khong, K. W., & Richardson, S. (2003). Business process reengineeing in Malaysian banks and finance

12

International Academic Research Journal of Business and Management

December

companies. Managing Service Quality, 54-71. Kyung Sung, T., & Gibson, D. V. (1998). Critical Success Factors for Business Reengineering and Corporate Performance: The Case of Korean Corporations. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 297–311. Love, P., & Gunasekaranb, A. (1997). Process reengineering: A review of enablers. Int. J. Production Economics, 183-197. Mcadam, R. (2000). The Implementation of Reengineering in SMEs: A Grounded Study. International Small Business Journal, 29-45. Neuman, W. (2000). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Needham Heights, United States of Amirica: ALLYN AND BACON. Obara Magutu, P., Onserio Nyamwange, S., & Kiplimo Process Kaptoge, G. (2010). For of Business Reengineering or Failure (The of Competitive the BPR &

Ryan, S., & Hurley, J. (2003). Have total quality management, business process reengineering and the learning organisation been replaced by knowledge management. The Irish Journal of Management, 41-55. Salimifard, K., Abbaszadeh, M., & Ghorbanpur, A. (2010). Interpretive Structural Modeling of Critical Success Factors in Banking Process Re-engineering. International Review of Business Research Papers, 6(2), 95-103. Sepehri, M. (2005). Business Process Reengineering: a Literature Review. 3rd International Management Conference . Tehran: Civilica. Sutcliffe, N. G. (1997). The role of Leadershipin Business Process Reengineering: An Empirical Study of the Relationship b e t w e e n Leadership Behavior and the Reengineering Outcomes. Los Angeles, USA: University of California, Los Angeles, USA. Tarokh, M. J., Sharifi, E., & Nazemi, E. (2008). Survey of BPR experiences in Iran: reasons for success and failure. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 350362. Tennant, C., & Wu, Y.-C. (2005). The application of business process reengineering in the UK. The TQM Magazine, 537-545. Terziovski, M., Fitzpatrick, P., & O’Neill, P. (2003). Successful predictors of business   process  reengineering  (BPR)  in  financial services. Int. J. Production Economics, 35– 50. Tissari, T., & Heikkila, J. (2001). Successful Re- engineering Learning by Doing. International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications, 329-344.

Advantage: Key Factors That May Lead To the Success African Implementation Management Wrigley Company).

Journal

Business

(AJBUMA), 135-150.

ONeill, P., & S.Sohal, A. (1998). Business process Journal reengineering: application and of Operations & Production success – an Australian study. International Management, 832-864. Ozcelik,   Y. (2010). Do business process

reengineering projects payo  ? Evidence from the United States. International Journal of Project Management , 7–13.

Paper, D., & Chang, R.-D. (2005). The State of Business Process Reengineering: A Search for Success Factors. Total Quality Management, 121–133.

2012

Hamid.Shahbandarzadeh, Khodakaram.Salimifard and Farid.Saeed

13

Vakola, M., & Rezgui, Y. (2000). Critique of existing business process re-engineering methodologies: the developement and implementation of a new methodology. Business process Management journal, 238-250. Warren, T., & David, N. (2006). Reengineering. In Encyclopaedia of hospital Administration and Management (pp. 263-278). Delhi. Wu, I.-L. (2002). A model for implementing BPR based on strategic perspectives: an empirical study. Information & Management , 313–324. Wu, I.-L. (2003). Understanding senior

strategic role of IT in process reengineering: use of the theory of reasoned action. Information & Management, 1–11. Xiang, J. (2010). Business Process Redesign Project Implementation and OutcomesA Proposed Model and Its Validation . Ottawa, Canada: McMaster University . Yu, D.-h., Yi, S.-p., Wang, T., & Zhao, J. (2010). An Empirical Study on the Success of BPR Based on Management International BPR Support Systems. Industrial Engineering and Engineering (IE&EM), 2010 IEEE 17Th Conference on (pp. 489-

management’s behavior in promoting the

495). Xiamen: IEEE.

Table1. Cronbach's alpha coefficient value for each of the seven major categories Category name Strategic factors Project management factors IT factors Top management factors Cultural factors Methodological factors Changes in management systems factors Statements 01-11 12-22 23-34 35-48 49-54 55-66 67-80 Cronbach's alpha coefficient 0.829 0.868 0.907 0.893 0.814 0.89 0.912

14

International Academic Research Journal of Business and Management

December

Table2. Scope and frequency of respondent Context Academic - Research Computer and Electronic Commerce Production-Industrial Car building Services (Insurance) Services (consultant engineering) Services (health care) Banks Municipal administration Telecommunications Transportation (railway, subway, etc.) Oil and Gas Mining and Industry (Development and Renovation) Total Percentage 59.83 9.17 5.24 4.8 1.31 6.55 0.87 0.44 1.75 1.75 4.37 2.19 1.75 100 Frequency 137 21 12 11 3 15 2 1 4 4 10 5 4 229 Cumulative frequency percentage 59.83 69 74.24 79.04 80.35 86.9 87.77 88.21 89.96 91.7 96.07 98.25 100

Table 3. KMO Coefficient values Bartlett's test for each of the main factors Project Strategic management 0.805 0.865 Top management 0.866 Change in Methodol manage-ogical ment systems 0.89 0.856

Indicator

IT

Cultural

KMO Chisquare (X2) Freedom degree Possibility value Determin ing the correlat ion matrix

0.896

0.779

864.646 922.544

1390.803 1393.582

521.791 1189.813 1440.105

Bartle tt's test

55 0

55 0.000

66 0.000

91 0.000

15 0.000

66 0.000

91 0.000

0.001

0.001

0.002

0.002

0.099

0.005

0.002

2012

Hamid.Shahbandarzadeh, Khodakaram.Salimifard and Farid.Saeed

15

Table 4. Eigenvalues and percentage of variance explained for each factor in the matrix and the rotation Factor Category Total Initial eigenvalues % of Variance 38.537 12.606 9.316 45.152 10.464 50.149 10.173 43.097 8.544 7.986 52.513 18.913 46.035 9.882 42.603 10.498 7.585 Extraction Sums of Squared loading % of Variance 27.904 17.993 14.562 37.635 17.98 30.859 29.463 27.285 20.124 12.217 44.645 26.78 30.686 25.231 21.886 19.734 19.065 Cumulative % of Variance 27.904 45.897 60.459 37.635 55.616 30.859 60.321 27.285 47.409 59.626 44.645 71.425 30.686 55.917 21.886 41.62 60.685

Cumulative % of Variance 38.537 51.143 60.459 45.152 55.616 50.149 60.321 43.097 51.641 59.626 52.513 71.425 46.035 55.917 42.603 53.101 60.685

Total

1 Strategic factors 2 3 Project management factors 1 2 1 IT factors 2 1 Top management factors 2 3 1 Cultural factors 2 Methodological factors 1 2 1 Changes in management systems factors 2 3

4.239 1.387 1.025 4.967 1.151 6.018 1.221 6.034 1.196 1.118 3.151 1.135 5.524 1.186 5.964 1.47 1.062

3.069 1.979 1.606 4.14 1.978 3.703 3.536 3.82 2.817 1.71 2.679 1.607 3.682 3.028 3.064 2.763 2.669

16

International Academic Research Journal of Business and Management

December