DVCTC-2013

Business Process Reengineering

for organisational renewal and growth

TEAM MEMBERS
Rakesh Ranjan, SE, CTPS – TEAM LEADER
Jaydev Barai, EE, CTPS
Arvind Kumar, AE, CTPS
S Jolly Samad, AE, CTPS
No. of words – 5726 (Presentation) + 430 (Abstract)
Date of submission – 27.09.2013
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Keywords i
2. Abstract i
3. What is BPR 1
4. Definition of BPR 1
5. Origins of BPR 2
6. BPR as Radical Change 2
7. Era after 1995 4
8. BPR success & failure factors 5
Organisation commitment 5
Organisational team 6
Project planning and 7
management
Adequate IT infrastructure 7
Effective change management 8
Continuous improvement 9
9. Case Studies 9
BPR case study at Honeywell 9
Lessons learned at Honeywell 10
Another case study of M&M 12
10.BPR in DVC 13
11.Concluding Remarks 14
12.BPR implementation in Tabular 16
form
13.References 17

DVCTC-2013: BPR for organisational renewal and growth

Keywords
BPR, IT, Radical Change, Success & Failure, Change Management, Team Continuous
improvement, Lessons learned, DVC, Power Sector, Case Study

A bstract
The globalisation of the economy and the liberalisation of the trade markets have
formulated new conditions in the market place which are characterised by
instability and intensive competition in the business environment. Competition is
continuously increasing with respect to price, quality and selection, service and promptness
of delivery.

This paper is an attempt to provide an overview of Business Process Re-engineering (BPR)

which is basically rethinking and radically redesigning an organization's existing resources.
BPR, however, is more than just business improvising; it is an approach for redesigning the
way work is done to better support the organization's mission and reduce costs.
Reengineering starts with a high-level assessment of the organization's mission, strategic
goals, and customer needs. Basic questions are asked, such as "Does our mission need to be
redefined? Are our strategic goals aligned with our mission? Who are our customers?" An
organization may find that it is operating on questionable assumptions, particularly in terms
of the wants and needs of its customers. Only after the organization rethinks what it should
be doing, does it go on to decide how best to do it.

Within the framework of this basic assessment of mission and goals, re-engineering focuses
on the organization's business processes—the steps and procedures that govern how
resources are used to create products and services that meet the needs of
particular customers or markets. As a structured ordering of work steps across time and
place, a business process can be decomposed into specific activities, measured, modelled,
and improved. It can also be completely redesigned or eliminated altogether. Re-engineering
identifies, analyzes, and re-designs an organization's core business processes with the aim of
achieving dramatic improvements in critical performance measures, such as cost, quality,
service, and speed.

In this paper we have tried to explore the principles and assumptions of BPR and identify the

DVCTC-2013: BPR for organisational renewal and growth

factors affecting its successes and failures. Especially we have highlighted some major
debates currently found in the literature of BPR. These debates include the definitions used
to describe business processes and BPR, the scale of the changes involved in BPR, and the
significance and role of information technology (IT) in BPR, especially IT systems along with
case studies of BPR implementation in Honeywell and Mahindra & Mahindra. We have also
discussed the scope of BPR execution in DVC in the today’s changed power scenario.

DVCTC-2013: BPR for organisational renewal and growth

W hat is BPR
BPR is known by many names, such as ‘core process redesign’, ‘new industrial
engineering’ or ‘working smarter’. All of them imply the same concept which
focuses on integrating both business process redesign and deploying IT to
support the reengineering work. Generally the topic of BPR involves
discovering how business processes currently operate, how to redesign these processes to
eliminate the wasted or redundant effort and improve efficiency, and how to implement the
process changes in order to gain competitiveness. The aim of BPR, according to Sherwood-
Smith (1994), is “seeking to devise new ways of organising tasks, organising people and
redesigning IT systems so that the processes support the organisation to realise its goals”.

D efinition of BPR
It is argued by some researchers (for example, van Meel et al., 1994; MacIntosh
and Francis, 1997; Peltu et al., 1996) that there is no commonly agreed definition
of BPR. Peltu et al. consider that this lack of an accepted definition of BPR makes it
difficult to assess the overall success or failure of its concept. Thus it is essential to
make clear what the definition of BPR is before we propose any framework and techniques
for BPR. The book “Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution by
Hammer and Champy (1993)” is widely referenced by most BPR researchers and is regarded
as one of the starting points of BPR. The following is their definition of BPR:

[Reengineering is] the fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of business

processes to achieve dramatic improvements in critical, contemporary measures of
performance, such as cost, quality, service and speed.

Another BPR father, Davenport (1993), describes ‘business process redesign’ as:
... the analysis and design of workflows and processes within and between
organisations. Business activities should be viewed as more than a collection of
individual or even functional tasks; they should be broken down into processes that
can be designed for maximum effectiveness, in both manufacturing and service
DVCTC-2013: BPR for organisational renewal and growth
 environment.

O rigins of BPR
The concept of BPR is widely regarded as having been introduced as a perceived
solution to the economic crisis and the recession of the late 1980’s and early
1990’s (Butler, 1994; Arnott and O’Don- nell, 1994).
As Butler describes it: “the ‘80s were a time for financial reengineering ... the ‘90s
are for technological reengineering”.

Hammer and Champy (1993) propose that “BPR can help organisations out of crisis
situations by becoming leaner, better able to adapt to market conditions, innovative,
efficient, customer focused and profitable in a crisis situation”.

MacIntosh and Francis suggest that it is becoming more important “to develop new
products effectively than to produce old products efficiently”. Hammer and Champy
conclude that previously divided tasks are now being reunified into coherent business
processes. Thus one reason why BPR becomes popular is that it provides a mechanism to
make the changes better to fit the competitive environment to which the enterprises must
adapt themselves in this new and post-industrial age.

B PR as Radical Change
BPR is a radical change, rather than incremental change. Hammer and Champy
(1993) highlight this tenet as:

Reengineering is ... about rejecting the conventional wisdom and received

assumptions of the past. ... Reengineering is the search for new models of organising
work. Tradition counts for nothing. Reengineering is a new beginning. ... To succeed
at reengineering, you have to be a visionary, a motivator, and a leg breaker.

Similarly Davenport (1993) advocates radical change:

Objectives of 5% or 10% improvement in all business processes each year must give
way to efforts to achieve 50%, 100%, or even higher improvement levels in a few key
processes. ... [Radical change is] the only means of obtaining the order-of-magnitude
DVCTC-2013: BPR for organisational renewal and growth
 improvements necessary in today’s global marketplace. ... Existing approaches to
meeting customer needs are so functionally based that incremental change will never
yield the requisite interdependence.

One reason the change in BPR is radical rather than incremental is “to avoid being trapped
by the way things are currently done” (Vidgen et al., 1994).

Dr Robinson of IBM UK highlights rapid IT innovation and increasingly intensive global

competition as two main reasons why organisations have had to consider the introduction of
radical change (cf. Peltu et al., 1996).

Robinson (1994) concludes that radically revisioned processes drive the shape of the
organisation, rather than current structures. Even such radical changes are not limited to
inside one organisation but forge with other organisations, which generate new views of an
organisation (Vidgen et al., 1994):

In 1990, Hammer, published the article "Reengineering Work: Don't Automate, Obliterate"
in the Harvard Business Review, in which he claimed that the major challenge for managers
is to obliterate forms of work that do not add value, rather than using technology for
automating it. This statement implicitly accused managers of having focused on the wrong
issues, namely that technology in general, and more specifically information technology, has
been used primarily for automating existing processes rather than using it as an enabler for
making non-value adding work obsolete.

Hammer's claim was simple: Most of the work being done does not add any value for
customers, and this work should be removed, not accelerated through automation. Instead,
companies should reconsider their processes in order to maximize customer value, while
minimizing the consumption of resources required for delivering their product or service.
This idea, to unbiasedly review a company’s business processes, was rapidly adopted by a
huge number of firms, which were striving for renewed competitiveness, which they had lost
due to the market entrance of foreign competitors, their inability to satisfy customer needs,
and their insufficient cost structure. Even well established management thinkers, such
as Peter Drucker and Tom Peters, were accepting and advocating BPR as a new tool for (re-
)achieving success in a dynamic world. During the following years, a fast growing number of

DVCTC-2013: BPR for organisational renewal and growth

publications, books as well as journal articles, were dedicated to BPR, and many consulting
firms embarked on this trend and developed BPR methods. However, the critics were fast to
claim that BPR was a way to dehumanize the work place, increase managerial control, and to
justify downsizing, i.e. major reductions of the work force, and a rebirth of Taylorism under a
different label.

Despite this critique, reengineering was adopted at an accelerating pace and by 1993, as
many as 60% of the Fortune 500 companies claimed to either have initiated reengineering
efforts, or to have plans to do so. This trend was fuelled by the fast adoption of BPR by the
consulting industry, but also by the study Made in America, conducted by MIT, that showed
how companies in many US industries had lagged behind their foreign counterparts in terms
of competitiveness, time-to-market and productivity.

E
ra after 1995
With the publication of critiques in 1995 and 1996 by some of the early BPR
proponents, coupled with abuses and misuses of the concept by others, the
reengineering fervour in the U.S. began to wane. Since then, considering business
processes as a starting point for business analysis and redesign has become a widely
accepted approach and is a standard part of the change methodology portfolio, but is
typically performed in a less radical way as originally proposed.

More recently, the concept of Business Process Management (BPM) has gained major
attention in the corporate world and can be considered as a successor to the BPR wave of
the 1990s, as it is evenly driven by a striving for process efficiency supported by information
technology. Equivalently to the critique brought forward against BPR, BPM is now accused of
focusing on technology and disregarding the people aspects of change.

B PR success & failure factors

Following the publication of the fundamental concepts of BPR by Hammer (1990)
and Davenport and Short (1990), many organisations have reported dramatic
benefits gained from the successful implementation of BPR. Companies like Ford Motor Co.,
CIGNA, and Wal-Mart are all recognised as having successfully implemented BPR.
DVCTC-2013: BPR for organisational renewal and growth
However, despite the significant growth of the BPR concept, not all organisations embarking
on BPR projects achieve their intended result. Hammer and Champy (1993) estimate that as
many as 70 percent do not achieve the dramatic results they seek. Having BPR repeatedly at
the top of the list of management issues in annual surveys of critical information systems
reflects executives' failure to either implement properly or acquire the benefits of BPR
(Alter, 1994). This mixture of results makes the issue of BPR implementation very important.

The following analyses the BPR implementation process by reviewing the relevant literature
on both soft and hard factors that cause success and failure of BPR efforts. The factors listed
below are distilled from various articles and empirical research on BPR implementation.
They were then categorised into a number of subgroups representing various dimensions of
change related to BPR implementation. These dimensions are:

(1) Organisational commitment;

(2) Organisational team;
(3) Project planning and management;
(4) Adequate IT infrastructure;
(5) Effective change management; and
(6) Continuous improvement.
Organization commitment

Before any BPR project can be implemented successfully, there must be a commitment to
the project by the management of the organization, and strong leadership must be
provided. Top management must recognize the need for change, develop a complete
understanding of what is BPR, and plan how to achieve it. Leadership has to be effective,
strong, visible, and creative in thinking and understanding in order to provide a clear vision
to the future. By informing and convincing all affected groups at every stage, and
emphasizing the positive end results of the reengineering process, it is possible to minimize
resistance to change and increase the odds for success. The ultimate success of BPR depends
on the strong, consistent, and continuous involvement of all departmental levels within the
organization. It also depends on the people who do it and how well they can be motivated to
be creative and to apply their detailed knowledge to the redesign of business processes.

DVCTC-2013: BPR for organisational renewal and growth

Organisational team

After the most important organizational commitment is secured from all departments
involved in the reengineering effort and at different levels, the critical step of selecting a BPR
team must be taken. This team will form the nucleus of the BPR effort, make key decisions
and recommendations, and help communicate the details and benefits of the BPR program
to the entire organization.

The most effective BPR teams include active representatives from the following work
groups: top management, business area responsible for the process being addressed,
technology groups, finance, and members of all ultimate process users’ groups. The BPR
team should be mixed in depth and knowledge. For example, it may include members with
the following characteristics:

 Members who do not know the process at all.

 Members who know the process inside-out.
 Customers, if possible.
 Members representing impacted departments.
 One or two members of the best, brightest, passionate, and committed technology
experts.
 Members from outside of the organization

Moreover, Covert (1997) recommends that in order to have an effective BPR team, it must
be kept under ten players. If the organization fails to keep the team at a manageable size,
the entire process will be much more difficult to execute efficiently and effectively. The
efforts of the team must be focused on identifying breakthrough opportunities and
designing new work steps or processes that will create quantum gains and competitive
advantage.

Project planning and management

Successful BPR implementation is highly dependent on an effective BPR Program

management, which includes strategic alignment, effective planning and project
management techniques, identification of performance, adequate resources, effective use of
consultants, building a process vision integrating BPR with other improvement techniques.
Proper planning for the BPR project with an adequate time frame are key factors in
delivering a successful BPR project on time. Effective use of project management techniques
DVCTC-2013: BPR for organisational renewal and growth
and managing people-related issues has also a crucial role in smoothing the flow of the
process redesign stages. Measurement of project progress should also be maintained
continually throughout a BPR project.

Too often, BPR teams jump directly into the technology without first assessing the current
processes of the organization and determining what exactly needs reengineering. In this
business analysis phase, a series of sessions should be held with process owners and
stakeholders, regarding the need and strategy for BPR. These sessions build a consensus as
to the vision of the ideal business process. They help identify essential goals for BPR within
each department and then collectively define objectives for how the project will impact each
work group or department on individual basis and the business organization as a whole. This
plan includes the following:

 identifying specific problem areas,

 solidifying particular goals, and
 defining business objectives.
Adequate IT infrastructure

Building an effective IT infrastructure is a vital factor in successful BPR implementation. An

adequate understanding of technologies for redesigning business processes is necessary for
proper selection of IT platforms. The main basic components which contribute to building an
effective IT infrastructure for business processes:

 building an effective IT infrastructure,

 adequate IT infrastructure investment decision,
 adequate measurement of IT infrastructure effectiveness,
 proper information systems (IS) integration,
 effective reengineering of legacy IS,
 increasing IT function competency, and
 effective use of software tools are the most important factors that contribute to the
success of BPR projects.

Most analysts view BPR and IT as irrevocably linked. Walmart, for example, would not have
been able to reengineer the processes used to procure and distribute mass-market retail
goods without IT. Ford was able to decrease its headcount in the procurement department
by 75 percent by using IT in conjunction with BPR, in another well-known example.

DVCTC-2013: BPR for organisational renewal and growth

Effective change management

Al-Mashari and Zairi (2000) suggest that BPR involves changes in people behaviour and
culture, processes, and technology. As a result, there are many factors that prevent the
effective implementation of BPR and hence restrict innovation and continuous improvement
(Fig – 1 at Page/16 may be referred to). Change management, which involves all human and
social related changes and cultural adjustment techniques needed by management to
facilitate the insertion of newly designed processes and structures into working practice and
to deal effectively with resistance, is considered by many researchers to be a crucial
component of any BPR effort. One of the most overlooked obstacles to successful BPR
project implementation is resistance from those whom implementers believe will benefit the
most. Most projects underestimate the cultural impact of major process and structural
change and as a result, do not achieve the full potential of their change effort. Many people
fail to understand that change is not an event, but rather a management technique.

Change management is the discipline of managing change as a process, with due

consideration that employees are people, not programmable machines. Change is implicitly
driven by motivation which is fuelled by the recognition of the need for change. An
important step towards any successful reengineering effort is to convey an understanding of
the necessity for change. It is a well-known fact that organizations do not change unless
people change; the better change is managed, the less painful the transition is.

Continuous Improvement
BPR is a successive and ongoing process and should be regarded as an improvement strategy
that enables an organization to make the move from traditional functional orientation to
one that aligns with strategic business processes.

Continuous improvement is defined as the propensity of the organization to pursue

incremental and innovative improvements in its processes, products, and services. The
incremental change is governed by the knowledge gained from each previous change cycle.
It is essential that the automation infrastructure of the BPR activity provides for
performance measurements in order to support continuous improvements. It will need to
efficiently capture appropriate data and allow access to appropriate individuals.

DVCTC-2013: BPR for organisational renewal and growth

At the end user’s level, there must be a proactive feedback mechanism that provides for and
facilitates resolutions of problems and issues. This will also contribute to a continuous risk
assessment and evaluation which are needed throughout the implementation process to
deal with any risks at their initial state and to ensure the success of the reengineering
efforts.

Hammer and Champy (1993) use the IBM Credit Corporation as well as Ford and Kodak, as
examples of companies that carried out BPR successfully due to the fact that they had long-
running continuous improvement programs.

C ase Studies
BPR success factors are a collection of lessons learned from reengineering projects
and from these lessons common themes have emerged. In addition, the ultimate
success of BPR depends on the people who do it and on how well they can be
committed and motivated to be creative and to apply their detailed knowledge to
the reengineering initiative. Organizations planning to undertake BPR must take into
consideration the success factors of BPR in order to ensure that their reengineering related
change efforts are comprehensive, well-implemented, and have minimum chance of failure.

BPR Case Study at Honeywell

Honeywell usually has four mechanisms in place - Process mapping, fail-safing, teamwork,
and communication for promotion of an enterprise-wide integrated plant.
Process mapping is a systematic BPR methodology to guide team process improvement
efforts along process paths. Fail-safing is a vehicle to help process teams identify and correct
defects quickly and permanently. Teaming is encouraged through communication of the
vision and rewards based on value-added activities. These four mechanisms facilitate
successful change, but do nothing to guarantee it.

What separates success from failure is execution. Top management has to be willing to
dedicate substantial training resources to educate the workforce about the four mechanisms
and how they work. Management behaviours have to change from autocratic to facilitative.
Teams have to be rewarded for enterprise value-added activities. Finally, the organizational
structure has to change to allow an environment conducive to innovation. rewards, and

DVCTC-2013: BPR for organisational renewal and growth

recognition.

At Honeywell, the path toward change is probably much smoother than in most
organizations because the organization has embraced change for many years. Honeywell is a
pioneer in quality management and has always developed its people through training
programs and rewards for value. Hence, execution was easier and resistance was not as big
an issue. However, problems had occurred.

The biggest obstacle to execution was within the middle management ranks. Members of
middle management were too used to being experts in a specific area. For instance, one
operations manager was the resident expert in materials flow, but he managed technology,
engineering, and manufacturing people. He would manage sub-optimally because every
problem was solved through materials flow. He could not see the cross-functional or cross-
specialization nature of the problem because of his narrow focus on materials flow. He had
to ``let go’’ of his expertise and let his people solve the problem as a cross-functional team.
It may sound like a simple change for this manager, but it took years.

Lessons learned from the case study of Honeywell

Lesson one: people are the key enablers of change
Business processes are complex, but process mapping offers a comprehensive blueprint of
the existing state. The blueprint enables systematic identification of opportunities for
improvement. IT is complex, but vendors, consultants, and system designers can create
models of the system. In contrast, people are unpredictable. They cannot be modelled or
categorized universally. However, people do the work and therefore must be trained,
facilitated, and nurtured.

Lesson two: question everything

Allowing people to question the way things are done is imperative to change. Fail-safing
provides a systematic approach to effectively question the status quo. People are
encouraged to question the existing state.

Lesson three: people need a systematic methodology to map processes

Process mapping is the mechanism used to map and understand complex business

DVCTC-2013: BPR for organisational renewal and growth

processes. The systematic nature of the process mapping methodology keeps people
focused and acts as a rallying point. Moreover, process mapping provides a common
language for everyone involved in the project.

Lesson four: create team ownership and a culture of dissatisfaction

Once a team perceives that they ``own’’ a project, they tend to want to make it work. It
becomes ``their’’ project. In addition, management should encourage people to be
dissatisfied with the way things are currently done. However, punishing people for
complaining about ineffective work processes is an effective way to promote the status quo.

Lesson five: management attitude and behaviour can squash projects

If the managerial attitude remains that of ``command and control’’ and/or their behaviour
does not change, transformation will most likely fail. Success depends on facilitative
management and visible and continuous support from the top. When Honeywell got its new
president in 1996, the attitude toward criticism changed dramatically. The new president
was not as accepting of casual criticism.

Lesson six: bottom-up or empowered implementation

While support from the top is critical, actual implementation should be carried out from the
bottom-up. The idea of empowerment is to push decisions down to where the work is
actually done. Process mapping and fail-safing are two systematic and proven
methodologies that help support empowered teams.

Lesson seven: BPR must be business-driven and continuous

Process improvements should be aligned with business objectives. Process mapping, fail-
safing, and teaming should be based on what the business needs to change to become more
successful. In this case, effective communication of ideas from top management throughout
the enterprise is imperative. In addition, organizations should be wary of the ``I’ve arrived’’
syndrome. Change is continuous and is never over.

Lesson eight: IT is a necessary, but not a sufficient, enabler

IT is not a panacea. IT enables BPR by automating redesigned processes. However,
information is for people. People work with people to produce products for other people. In

DVCTC-2013: BPR for organisational renewal and growth

addition, people need quick and easy access to quality information to help them make good
decisions. Therefore, IT needs to be designed to support the business and the production of
products to be effective.

Lesson nine: set stretch goals

Goals should be set a little higher than what the team believes they can accomplish. Since
teams have little experience with the new paradigm, goal setting will tend to be based on
the past. Project managers should work with the team to help them develop stretch goals.

Lesson ten: execution is the real difference between success and failure
The Honeywell case introduces four powerful mechanisms to facilitate enterprise change.
However, real change will not happen without a plan for change and aggressive execution of
that plan. We believe that execution fails in many cases because organizations are not
willing to dedicate resources, time, and energy to the effort.

Another Case Study of Mahindra & Mahindra

By the mid 1990s, BPR had become a popular tool globally, with many leading organizations
implementing it. However, when M&M undertook the exercise, it was still a new concept in
India.

M&M's workforce, as mentioned earlier, resisted this attempt to reengineer the

organization. Soon after the senior staff began working on the shopfloors, the first signs of
the benefits of BPR became evident. Around a 100 officers produced 35 engines a day as
compared to the 1200 employees producing 70 engines in the pre-BPR days.

After five months, the workers ended the strike and began work in exchange for a 30% wage
hike. As the situation returned to normalcy, BPR implementation gained momentum. M&M
realized that it would have to focus on two issues when implementing the BPR program:
reengineering the layout and method of working, and productivity.

Summing up the company's BPR experience, Anand Mahindra said, "Let me put it in a simple
way. If we have facilities in Kandivili today, which are not just surviving but thriving, it is all
due to BPR.

DVCTC-2013: BPR for organisational renewal and growth

B PR in DVC
It is not out of place to mention that entire Indian Power industry is passing
through a difficult phase these days after the Electricity Act 2003 and Electricity
Regulatory Commission has come into existence leading to start think towards a
metamorphosis of our working culture so that we could successfully compete with others
and growth.

While DVC and power sector in India as a whole has witnessed a few success stories in the
last 4-5 years, the road that lies ahead of us is dotted with innumerable challenges that
result from the gaps that exist between what’s planned versus what we been able to deliver.
India has historically failed to meet its power sector targets by a significant margin and with
tremendous opportunities ahead, the power sector continues to be affected by the shortfall
both on generation as well as transmission side.

This strongly necessitates employing a comprehensive reengineering in our existing

management structure to address the major challenges of the power sector and to be able
to deliver them as per the planned targets.

As discussed initially, the overall intent of this paper is to highlight each and every aspect of
BPR which may be utilised in our organisation as well as the power industry as a whole to
address these challenges.

It is worthwhile to mention here that DVC has already started taking initiatives in this regard
viz. Formation of SBUs, IT enabled services and EBA, introduction of KPA and revised
promotion policy and APAR, restructuring of DVC organisation after revision of DVC Act,
gearing up for floating Special Purpose Vehicles for listing

DVCTC-2013: BPR for organisational renewal and growth

C oncluding Remarks
In this paper we have tried to explore the basic questions: “where does BPR comes
from?, “what is involved in BPR”, considered some factors affecting its success and
failure, especially the human factors and the role if IT. We have also given two case
studies for better understanding of BPR. Although the case study research is sample size that
limits Generalizability and has several limitations. A specific limitation is that this case is
industry-specific. Different industries and organizations have different environmental forces
to deal with.

However, by studying the Honeywell transformation paradigm, we were able to uncover

some very important insights regarding successful change. Most importantly, we discovered
that execution separates Honeywell from other organizations involved in transformation.
We were also able to identify nine other important change lessons. We concluded that the
best way this information can be collected is through the case study methodology.

Another major issue is dealing with change. Change is painful and difficult to implement.
‘Change of even the simplest sort is hopelessly complex . . . even making the case for change
is close to impossible’’. However, change is a fundamental aspect of BPR. Organizations
should therefore openly deal with change. Top management needs to communicate to its
people why the change is necessary and how it will impact everyone’s current job and future
with the company. Top management needs to convey to its people that BPR is not being
used to replace workers, but to improve quality, reduce cycle time, and create value for
customers. Patience is also needed. Change takes time.

Last but not least, for making any new thing successful, first and foremost requirement is to
move together as very well said in our own very old philosophy and culture which we have
learnt from our past.
“ॐ संगच्छध्वं संवदध्वं. सं वो मन ं सस ज नत म् .
दे व भ गं यथ पूवे. सञ्ज न न उप सते ||”
Which means “Let us move together, let us interact together, let us know each other’s mind;
as learned sages and seers have been practicing” (Shloka from Rigveda).

DVCTC-2013: BPR for organisational renewal and growth

DVCTC-2013: BPR for organisational renewal and growth
R eferences

 Abrahamson, E. (1996). Management fashion, Academy of Management

Review, 21, 254-285.
 Champy, J. (1995). Reengineering Management, Harper Business Books, New York.
 Davenport, Thomas & Short, J. (1990), "The New Industrial Engineering: Information
Technology and Business Process Redesign", in: Sloan Management Review, Summer
1990, pp 11–27
 Davenport, Thomas (1993), Process Innovation: Reengineering work through information
technology, Harvard Business School Press, Boston
 Davenport, Thomas (1995), Reengineering - The Fad That Forgot People, Fast Company,
November 1995.
 Drucker, Peter (1972), "Work and Tools", in: W. Kranzberg and W.H. Davenport
(eds), Technology and Culture, New York
 Dubois, H. F. W. (2002). "Harmonization of the European vaccination policy and the role
TQM and reengineering could play", Quality Management in Health Care, 10(2): pp. 47–
57. "PDF"
 Guha, S.; Kettinger, W.J. & Teng, T.C., Business Process Reengineering: Building a
Comprehensive Methodology, Information Systems Management, Summer 1993
 Hammer, M., (1990). "Reengineering Work: Don't Automate, Obliterate", Harvard
Business Review, July/August, pp. 104–112.
 Hammer, M. and Champy, J. A.: (1993) Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for
Business Revolution, Harper Business Books, New York, 1993. ISBN 0-06-662112-7.
 Hammer, M. and Stanton, S. (1995). "The Reengineering Revolution", Harper Collins,
London, 1995.
 Hansen, Gregory (1993) "Automating Business Process Reengineering", Prentice Hall.
 Johansson, Henry J. et al. (1993), Business Process Reengineering: BreakPoint Strategies
for Market Dominance, John Wiley & Sons
 Leavitt, H.J. (1965), "Applied Organizational Change in Industry: Structural, Technological
and Humanistic Approaches", in: James March (ed.), Handbook of Organizations, Rand
McNally, Chicago
 Loyd, Tom (1994), "Giants with Feet of Clay", Financial Times, Dec 5 1994, p 8
 Malhotra, Yogesh (1998), "Business Process Redesign: An Overview", IEEE Engineering
Management Review, vol. 26, no. 3, Fall 1998.
 Ponzi, L. and Koenig, M. (2002). "Knowledge management: another management
fad?", Information Research, 8(1).
 "Reengineering Reviewed", (1994). The Economist, 2 July 1994, pp 66.
 Roberts, Lon (1994), Process Reengineering: The Key To Achieving Breakthrough Success,
Quality Press, Milwaukee.
 Taylor (1911), Frederick, The principles of scientific management, Harper & Row, New
York]
 Thompson, James D. (1969), Organizations in Action, MacGraw-Hill, New York
 White, JB (1996), Wall Street Journal. New York, N.Y.: Nov 26, 1996. pg. A.1
 Business Process Redesign: An Overview, IEEE Engineering Management Review

DVCTC-2013: BPR for organisational renewal and growth

DVCTC-2013: BPR for organisational renewal and growth