This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Department of Management Information Systems, Bogazici University, Istanbul January, 2004
The purpose of this study is to gain an understanding of the Business Process Reengineering (BPR) concept. This is achieved through a survey of the leading papers, articles, and books in the literature covering the period from 1990 to 2003. The paper first discusses the need for reengineering and then reviews the literature under the following headings: What is a Business Process?, The definition of BPR, How does BPR differ from TQM?, Principles of Reengineering, BPR Methodology, BPR Tools and Techniques, Relationship between BPR and IT, Successful examples of BPR , Failure of BPR Projects: Barriers to effective implementation, and The Myths about BPR. The paper finally addresses the current state and future of the BPR concept.
Keywords: Business Process Reengineering; Literature survey; Total Quality Management; Information Technology ____________________________________________________________________________________________________
As we had entered the 1990s, with globalization and the extraordinary pace of the developments in the IT area, three driving forces; Customers, Competition, and Change (“the three C’s” as described by Hammer&Champy, 1993) resulted with a new approach to the management of processes, termed Business Process Reengineering, that produces radical improvements in performance. Customers are now very diverse, segmented, and are expectant of consultation; Competition has intensified to meet the needs of customers in every niche; and Change has become pervasive, persistent, faster and in some markets a pre-requisite. Together, these
three forces have created a New World for business, such that organizations designed to operate in one environment are inadequately equipped to operate well in another. Companies created to thrive on mass production stability, and growth cannot be simply improved to succeed in a world where customers, competition, and change demand flexibility and quick response. The aim of reengineering in this environment is to facilitate the match between market opportunities and corporate capabilities, and in doing so, reengineering represents a radical shift away from Frederick Taylor’s traditional task-based thinking to process-based thinking.
What is a Business Process?
Business people must ask the most basic questions about their companies and how they operate: “Why do we do what we do?” and “Why do we do it the way we do?” Asking these basic questions lead people to understand the fundamental operations and to think why the old rules and assumptions exist. these rules and assumptions are inappropriate and obsolete. Business Process Reengineering. Hammer&Champy (1993) have promoted the definition of BPR to “the fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of business processes to achieve dramatic improvements in critical. there are still many other authors with variations on these terms. They cross organizational boundaries. while Davenport and Short to business process redesign. referring to process changes large and small. On the other hand. such as cost. Hammer&Champy (1993) define business process as “a collection of activities that takes one or more kinds of input and creates an output that is of value to the customer”. ordering goods from a supplier. service. . This definition comprises four keywords: fundamental. that is. that is. is the fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of business processes to achieve dramatic improvements in critical. Keyword 1: Fundamental Understanding the fundamental operations of business is the first step prior to reengineering. creating a marketing plan. and have different business consequences. Davenport&Short (1990) have categorized business processes according to three dimensions: Organizational entities or subunits involved in the process (Interorganizational. etc. Often. radical. the value of process management is now being recognized. Davenport&Short (1990). Although. As the basis of competition changes from cost and quality to flexibility and responsiveness. and The Definition of Business Process Reengineering (BPR) To be a truly world-class organization. with each understanding the importance of cross functional processes. Hammer referred to business process reengineering. and speed. the company needs to work as a team and all the functional areas of the business need to be properly integrated. quality. Examples of processes include: developing a new product. they normally occur across or between organizational subunits. and Interpersonal Processes) The type of objects manipulated (Physical and Informational Processes) The type of activities taking place (Operational and Managerial Processes) Different process types require different levels of management attention and ownership. Hammer (1990) has defined Business Process Reengineering as “the use of information technology to radically redesign business processes in order to achieve dramatic improvements in their performance”. and speed”. and there are recipients of the outcomes. Keyword 2: Radical Radical redesign means disregarding all existing structures and procedures. processes have defined outcomes. it is in both the interpretation and the scope of the organizational change concept.. The role that process management can play in creating sustainable competitive advantage was termed Business Process Reengineering (BPR). Three years later. all Davenport&Short (1990) define business process as “a set of logically related tasks performed to achieve a defined business outcome”. the BPR definition of Hammer&Champy (1993) is widely accepted today. and was first introduced by Hammer (1990). processes have two important characteristics: They have customers. In their view. processing and paying an insurance claim. quality.. need different forms of IT support. contemporary measures of performance. dramatic and processes. Interfunctional. such as cost. On the other hand. contemporary measures of performance. Where there is confusion. service.2 Davenport&Short (1990) have described Business Process Redesign as “the analysis and design of workflows and processes within and between organizations”.
how should it . They have no choice. 1999) BPR also emphasizes focus on the process. though the most important in the definition.form an integrated strategic management system within organizations. and depends on each individual at each level. and active involvement becoming involvement more throughout the reinforcementeffort oriented Intensity of Ongoing Ongoing team-member involvement involvement for involvement on an asa specified needed. Reengineering approaches are provided by Chang (1994) in the following table: Differences Between Quality Improvement (TQM) and Process Reengineering (BPR) QualityMajor Factor Improvement Reengineering Approach Approach SeniorHands-on Hands-on. partduration on a time basis full-time basis Improvement Focus on Focus on goals incremental dramatic improvements improvements in over a period of a short time time frame Implementation Emphasis on Emphasis on approach improving creating new current work ways of doing processes things Magnitude of Limited Radical changes organizational disruption to to existing change existing systems systems and and structures structures Breadth of Addresses Addresses focus narrowly processes that defined work span entire processes business units Use of Used after Used on front benchmark process end. Quality approaches concentrate on improving existing processes. At the center of TQM is the concept of the management of processes. begins with no assumptions and takes nothing for granted. technology. There are three kinds of companies that undertake reengineering in general. (Chang. and the existence of internal suppliers and customers within organizations. people.3 inventing completely new ways of accomplishing work. management initially. Third are companies that are in the peak conditions. Reengineering is about business reinvention. on structures. or organizational structures. is the one that gives most corporate managers the greatest difficulty. Keyword 4: Processes The final keyword “Process”. Most business people are not process-oriented. process reengineering starts from scratch to create new processes without the constraints of existing methods. It is essentially a way of planning. management systems. Its aim is to continuously improve process performance in order to satisfy customer requirements. BPR Methodology Assuming that a company has decided its processes are inefficient or ineffective. organizing and understanding each activity. BPR is much more radical than TQM. and therefore in need of redesign. Second are companies that foresee themselves in trouble because of changing economic environment. to assist data improvement. Keyword 3: Dramatic Reengineering is not about making marginal improvements or modification but about achieving dramatic improvements in performance. TQM involves placing the customer as the focal point of operations. on jobs. effectiveness and flexibility of a whole organization. However. with process to compare data selection Dependence on Information Information information systems used systems used as systems for data a central enabler collection and with on-line interpretation access How does BPR differ from TQM? Total Quality Management (TQM) is an approach to improving the competitiveness. 1994) The major differences between Quality Improvement and Process Quality specialists tend to focus on incremental change and gradual improvement of processes. First are companies that find themselves in deep trouble. while proponents of reengineering often seek radical redesign and drastic improvement of processes. on people. They see reengineering as a chance to further their lead over their competitors. they are focused on tasks. Davenport&Short (1990) suggest that TQM and BPR can -and should. (O’Neill&Sohal. but not on processes. On the other hand.
but Davenport&Short (1990) prescribe a fivestep approach to BPR: 5) Design and Build a Prototype of the New Process: The actual design should not be viewed as the end of the BPR process. 1) Develop Business Vision and Process Objectives: BPR is driven by a business vision which implies specific business objectives such as Cost Reduction. Output Quality Improvement. Change management: Since management of change is the largest task in reengineering. 3) Understand and Measure the Existing Processes: Understanding and measuring the existing processes before redesigning them is especially important. some suggest that the key to successful reengineering lies in the development of a vision of the process. 4) Identify IT Levers: In the broadest sense.influence process design. Lesser number of firms use the Exhaustive approach that attempts to identify all the processes within an organization and then prioritize them in order of redesign urgency. examined regularly for problems and objective achievement. Process mapping/operational method study: Process mapping and operational method studies have been incorporated into tools such as IDEF0 (Integrated Definition Method). would be implemented on a pilot basis. The result of this void is that authors and consultants alike have pursued the use of many different tools in the search for the best reengineering application. understanding generic design criteria. Quality of Worklife (QWL)/Learning/Empowerment. and Prince2 (Process Based Project Management). Time Reduction. all of IT’s capabilities involve improving coordination and information access across organizational units.4 proceed? This is a straightforward activity. accurate measurement can serve as a baseline for future improvements. the role of IT in a process should be considered in the early stages of its redesign. with successive iterations expected and managed. refer specifically to the tools and techniques used in reengineering business processes. Therefore. after agreement by owners and stakeholders. and creating organizational prototypes. it would be phased into full implementation. Key factors and tactics to consider in process design and prototype generation include using IT as a design tool. BPR Tools and Techniques The various definitions of BPR suggest that the radical improvement of processes is the goal of BPR. thereby allowing for more effective management of task interdependence. however. Rather. They do not. OOA (Object Oriented Analysis). As the process approached final acceptance. DFD (Data Flow Diagrams). 2) Identify Processes to be Redesigned: Most firms use the High-Impact approach which focuses on the most important processes or those that conflict most with the business vision. it should be viewed as a prototype. On the other hand. These prototypes of business process changes and organizational redesign initiatives. the human side of . because problems must be understood so that they are not repeated. An awareness of IT capabilities can -and should. and modified as necessary. The basic ones among these tools and techniques are briefly summarized in a BPR literature review by O’Neill&Sohal (1999): Process visualization: While many authors refer to the need to develop an ideal “end state” for processes to be reengineered.
On the other hand. Most incorporate a mixture of tools. and CAD/CAM systems are powerful enablers of process change. however many recent successes in reengineering would be difficult to consummate without the enabling IT.5 reengineering. Finally. IT's promise -and its ultimate impact. and the development of a BPR strategy is the key to success. Attaran (2003) categorizes IT roles in BPR into three phases: Phase 1: Before the process design (as an enabler) Create infrastructures and manage information that support evolving organization Foster process thinking in organizations Identify and select process for redesign Participate in predicting the nature of change and anticipate the information needs to support that change Educate IT staff in non-technical issues such as marketing. (Chang. in particular the management of organizational change should not be neglected. Application of shared computing resources and telecommunication technologies. . 1990) Hammer (1990) considers IT as the key enabler of BPR. Analytical. Sequential. and telecommunications”. While some authors appear to suggest that tools and techniques are the key. Business processes represent a new approach to coordination across the firm. Benchmarking: Benchmarking forms an integral part of reengineering. since it allows the visualization and development of processes which are known to be in operation in other organizations. Grover&Malhotra (1997) note that conceptually. workflow software. customer relationships. software applications. whether it be hard (technological) or soft (management of people). 1994) Process and customer focus: The primary aim of BPR. and of the relationships between them. Informational. Finally. 1994) It should be noted that few authors refer to any single technique when discussing BPR. Participate in designing measures of success/failures of reengineering Phase 2: During the process design (as a facilitator) Bring vast amounts of information into the process Bring complex analytical methods to bear on the process Enhance employees’ ability to make more informed decisions with less reliance on formal vertical information flows Identify enablers for process design Relationship Between BPR and Information Technology Information Technology (IT) refers to “the capabilities offered by computers. (Chang. etc.is to be the most powerful tool for reducing the costs of coordination. and business processes should be in terms of the capabilities IT can provide. Davenport&Short (1990) outline the following capabilities that reflect the roles that IT can play in BPR: Transactional. is to redesign processes with regard to improving performance from the customer’s perspective. an organization should be able to redesign a business process without the aid of IT. although the nature of the mix depends on the application. Davenport&Short (1990) argue that BPR requires taking a broader view of both IT and business activity." He prescribes the use of IT to challenge the assumptions inherent in the work processes that have existed since long before the advent of modern computer and communications technology. and that. Davenport&Short (1990) refer to this broadened. and Disintermediation. There seems little doubt in either the literature or in practice that efforts on the scale of BPR must be strategically driven and supported by senior management if they are to succeed. Tracking. IT capabilities should support business processes. recursive view of IT and BPR as “the new industrial engineering”. which he considers as "radical change. Knowledge Management. IT and BPR have recursive relationship. most authors suggest that a strategic approach to BPR. Automatical. Geographical. (Davenport&Short.
Pretty good. Capture information once and at the source. not tasks. Ford’s North American accounts payable department employed 500 people. Have those who use the output of the process perform the process. to match Mazda’s efficiency. when American automotive industry was in a depression.6 Capture the nature of proposed change and match IT strategy to that change Capture and disseminate knowledge and expertise to improve the process Communicate ongoing results of the BPR effort Transform unstructured processes into routinized transactions Reduce/replace labor in a process Measure performance of current process Define clear performance goals and objectives to drive the implementation Define the boundaries and scope of the process Phase 3: During the implementation (as an implementor) Create a digital feedback loop Establish resources for critical evaluation of the reengineered process Improve IT processes to meet increasing needs of those divisions that have gone under reengineering processes Institute a program of ‘‘cleanup’’ and damage control in case of failure Communicate ongoing results of the BPR effort Help to build commitment to BPR Evaluate the potential investment and return of reengineering efforts Successful Examples of BPR Until this section. we have examined the theoretical background of BPR. Ford’s top management put accounts payable – along with many other departments. and build control into the process. Treat geographically dispersed resources as though they were centralized. (2) Upon arrival of purchased goods. a number of paper documents was processed sequentially by 3 functions who participate in the process indirectly with a work force of 500 clerks to perform many intermediate steps: (1) The purchasing function issues a purchase order to the supplier and sends a copy to the accounts payable function. thought Ford’s executives. Under the old system. Put the decision point where the work is performed. until they visited Mazda. At that time. the inventory function sends a copy of the receiving document to the payable function. Case 1: Ford Motor Co.under the microscope in search of ways to cut costs. 1990) In the early 1980s. By using computers to automate such processes. Subsume information-processing work into the real work that produces the information. Principles of Reengineering Hammer (1990) has described some of the principles of reengineering the business processes as follows: Organize around outcomes. Link parallel activities instead of integrating their results. Finally. The Ford managers noted that the admittedly smaller company took care of its accounts payable chores with only five people. Ford realized that it would have to rethink the entire process in which the accounts payable department took part. But what does reengineering look like in the real world? Here is how some mainstream companies such as Ford Motor and IBM Credit have done it. reengineering its accounts payable processes (adapted from Hammer. Ford thought it could cut head count by 20%. . The contrast –Ford’s 500 people to Mazda’s 5was too great to attribute just to the smaller company’s size.
for instance. If a match is found. (2) Upon receiving goods. a generalist processes the entire request from beginning to end. how could one generalist replace four specialists? The old process design was. and only 3 data items need to be checked in the process. (3) The business practices department was in charge of modifying the standard loan covenant in response to customer request. however. the administration department turned all this information into quote letter that could be delivered to the field sales representative. (4) Matching and discrepancy resolution of paper documents are no longer needed.7 (3) When the invoice from the supplier arrives in the mail. is now accomplished at the receiving dock. the goods are returned to the sender. to install a control desk. Case 2: IBM Credit Co.with generalists. no one would tell where the request was and when it could be done. Payment authorization. And the result is a 75% improvement in head count. which used to be performed by accounts payable. Ford’s new accounts payable process looks radically different. With a work force of only 125. and services that the IBM Corporation sells. so they could answer the sale representative's question about the status of the request. 1993) IBM Credit Corporation is in the business of financing the computers. at the expense of adding more time to the turnaround. That is. eliminating many intermediate steps and sequential flow of paper documents. this turnaround was too long that the customer could be seduced by another computer vendor. and invoices from suppliers are eliminated. the 3 functions participate in the process directly by accessing a shared database. two senior managers at IBM Credit took a request and walked themselves through all five steps. (4) Next. But.the credit checkers. They found that performing the actual work took in total only ninety minutes. (4) Much of efforts are needed to resolve frequent discrepancies between the documents. Accounts payable clerks no longer match purchase order with receiving document. Now. Otherwise. but in the structure of the process itself. They decided. primarily because the new process eliminates the invoice entirely. the problem did not lie in the tasks and the people performing them. the payable function matches it against the purchase order and the receiving document before issuing payment to the supplier. (2) The request was then dispatched to the credit department where a specialist checked the potential borrower's creditworthiness. (3) The payable function routinely accesses the database to prepare payment checks for orders that have changed status. The special terms to the request form would be attached to the request if necessary. the request went to the price department where a pricer determined the appropriate interest rate to charge the customer. the goods are shipped and the status of the order in the database is updated. Eventually. Furthermore. instead of forwarding the request to the next step in the chain. found on a deeply held (but deeply hidden) assumption: that every bid request was . IBM Credit tried several fixes. IBM Credit replaced its specialists . From the sales representative's point of view. and a total of 14 data items must be checked in the process. software. pricers and so on . wrote the result on the piece of paper and dispatched to the next link in the chain. In the end. which was the business practices department. The new process looks like this: (1) The purchase order is entered into the shared database by the purchasing function. the inventory function accesses the database. each department would return the request to the control desk where an administrator logged the completion of each step before sending out the request again. To improve this process. The basic concept of the change at Ford is simple. This fix did indeed solve the problem. This entire process consumed six days on average. reengineering its credit approval process (adapted from Hammer&Champy. Clearly. one of the operators in the central office wrote down the request on a piece of paper. The IBM Credit's operation comprises of five steps as follows: (1) When an IBM field sales representative called in with a request for financing. (5) Finally. in fact.
IBM Credit therefore developed a new. The new turnaround becomes four hours instead of six days. This is true. most requests were simple and straightforward: finding a credit rating in a database. "How do we improve the entire credit issuance process?" And the result was a 90% improvement in cycle time and 100 times (not 100%) increase in productivity (# of deals). this assumption was false. jobs.8 unique and difficult to process. In really tough situations. Lack of proper strategy: A major reason for the high failure rates of BPR efforts is that the efforts are not connected to the corporate goals. the system provides guidance and data to generalists. Attaran (2003) describes the common barriers to effective implementation of BPR projects as follows: Misunderstanding of the concept: Lack of understanding the concept cause The Myths about BPR Besides the common barriers to effective implementation BPR described by Attaran (2003). Misapplication of the term: Reengineering is not cheap. IS failure to change: IT can be one of the greatest barriers to BPR. but because of implementation problems. Resistance on the part of IS personnel has more often been a failure in implementation than an enabler. not because the concept is flawed. Performance gains of 50 to 100 percent are common for some reengineered processes. These tasks fall well within the capability of a single individual when he or she is supported by an easy-to-use computer system. The company achieved a dramatic performance breakthrough by making a radical change to the process.at times. Reengineering. some myths concerning the BPR concept also represent obstacles in front of BPR projects. The seven myths of BPR described by Grover&Malhotra (1997) are as follows: Myth 1: “Reengineering is a radical one-time approach” is changing as many firms are not willing to invest the money and time to implement change from a “clean state”. always involve more people resources than are available. and always presents problems no one anticipates. despite all the energy. In most situations. However. sophisticated computer to support the generalists. means doing more with less. In fact. money. reengineering is still an unfulfilled promise. Management failure to change: Lack of leadership is a frequent cause for the high failure rate of BPR projects. as time passes. Myth 2: “Reengineering involves breakthrough performance gains” is being challenged as benchmarking and measurement of these gains can prove elusive. Myth 3: “Reengineering enables change primarily through IT” is being moderated by the numerous organizational innovations involving people. he or she can get help from a small pool of real specialists who are assigned to work in the same team. managers label any organizational change as reengineering which results with a failure to appreciate the promise of reengineering. and efforts spent by companies trying to make their organizations’ reengineering efforts successful. It is a refreshing new approach to doing business and there is plenty of evidence that it works well -even spectacularly. Failure of BPR Projects: Barriers to effective implementation Downsizing and restructuring means doing less with less. "How do we improve the calculation of a financing quote? How do we enhance credit checking?" It asked instead. pulling clauses from a file. skills and . IBM Credit did not ask. plugging numbers into a standard model. and it cannot be successful without a continuous improvement process. Many reengineering efforts have been stopped because radical change would require IS redesign. Unrealistic objectives: Reengineering always takes longer than expected. in contrast. thereby requiring the intervention of four highly trained specialists. Hammer&Champy (1993) estimate (unscientifically) that 70% of organizations that undertake reengineering fail to achieve any results. Failing to recognize the importance of people: Many companies who attempt reengineering focus on process design and ignore or underestimate the importance of people.
Companies such as Cisco. The Internet blurs the boundaries between companies by allowing work to be done wherever it is done best.9 structures that facilitate process-oriented behaviors. higher profits and throughput. He calls this process X-engineering— crossing organizational boundaries. Champy (2002) argues that BPR was 1990s remedy for sluggish corporations that lacked customer focus and competitive ability. Dell. Intel and Solectron are examples of successful X-engineering implementations. Such efforts are not strategically Conclusion This study has presented a survey of the literature on Business Process Reengineering. Some users achieved large cost reductions. businesses will need to continue by using technology to add customers. and as much as US$ 50 billion in 1995 and 1996. how it differs from TQM. Reengineering efforts have produced a wide range of results. Myth 5: “Reengineering enhances individual capacities through empowerment and teams” is all well and good but many process-change projects are being defended based on cost objectives achieved through downsizing with few opportunities for retraining. It first discussed the need for reengineering and then presented a review of the literature on the definition of BPR. relationship with IT. Today. The redesign of work will be between a company and its customers. its principles. American businesses spent more than US$ 30 billion on reengineering projects in 1994. suppliers. just as earlier reengineering efforts capitalized on the PC and shared databases. and greatly impacted the operations of service and manufacturing firms. Hammer (1999) states that with the advent of the Internet. Many innovative IT applications stem from a combination of breakthrough ideas and from modifying the ideas that have succeeded or failed in other companies. Myth 4: “Reengineering should focus on cross-functional core business processes” is fine. but many piecemeal improvements within functions can also add up to significant change and have proven very successful. Now it is going through its second wave with the great pace of the advent in telecommunications. however the new wave is taking less than half that time. Such a response compromises future competitiveness and is doomed to fail. as is also being documented for a large proportion of unsuccessful reengineering projects. The paper finally addressed the current state and future of BPR. etc. A global economy has mandated greater operational effectiveness and efficiency. The Current State and Future Of Reengineering Many companies considered reengineering to be the productivity breakthrough of the 1990s. successful examples . a new wave of reengineering efforts have come up to the stage that exploit the power of communications. (Attaran. and lead to firms losing vital components of the workforce that will make them creative and productive in the long run. many corporations have responded by performing major workforce reductions under the aegis of reengineering. barriers and myths. driven. 2003) Grover&Malhotra (1997) claim that the future of reengineering is difficult to evaluate without considering the current business trends. tools and techniques. Unfortunately. In many of these firms. . IT played an important role in process redesign. Myth 6: “Reengineering can use a standardized set of methods touted by armies of consultants” is being questioned given that no standardized approach exists to date. The concept of BPR has originated in the early 1990s and has achieved popularity amongst businesses in a very short period of time. methodology. Myth 7: “Reengineering must be conducted from the top down” is being challenged since often detailed understanding of process design resides with people who do the work. he sees reengineering as only a beginning. and other partners to the process redesign mix. suppliers and partners. Finally. Hammer (1999) concludes that the S-curve of first-generation business process reengineering took a decade to get liftoff. In this decade. On the other hand. and imposed tremendous pressures for cost reductions. These pressures have cut across different segments of the economy.
10 What is clear from the review presented in this paper is that although there seems to be confusion in the literature as to what constitutes BPR. September). J. Obliterate. 104-112. 54–58. Her research areas include. She has authored several articles in school journals. technology and application. gave seminars and conferences in the IT area and received the second best project award with “Evleniyoruz. e-business and egovernment applications. project management. pp. & Short.” Journal of Operations Management 15 (3). 11-27. “Improve processes. "The New Industrial Engineering: Information Technology and Business Process Redesign. M. 19.. M. from Department of Computer Technology and Programming in 1999. A. Ankara in 2001. and business process reengineering. (1999. time management... p.” Warner Books. from Faculty of Business Administration in 2003 at Istanbul University. July-August).com” in the “Ecommerce and New Economy Project Contest” in Middle East Technical University." Sloan Management Review.. (1999. vol. ”Business Process Reengineering A review of recent literature. “Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution. “Exploring the relationship between information technology and business process reengineering.Y. Sohal. Istanbul. “Business process reengineering: A tutorial on the concept. April). reengineer them. O'Neill.” Training and Development 48 (3). New York. . pp. Hammer.S.” Technovation. New York.A. 9.. Chang. and B. M. candidate in the Department of Management Information Systems at Bogazici University. Hammer. She received her B. M.E. Champy. It requires a new perspective on the part of management—may be even a new philosophy… References Attaran. Davenport.H. "Reengineering Work: Don't Automate. J. 193–213. “Reengineering At Net Speed .” Information & Management.. pp. The New Wave Is Taking Less Than Half That Time.. (1997). (1990 Summer). artificial intelligence. (2002) ”X-Engineering the Corporation: Reinventing Your Business in the Digital Age.. J.K. 571-581 Ilda Tanoglu is currently an M. T. there is a consensus on the fact that reengineering requires creative thinking. pp.. method.” InformationWeek. Grover.The First Wave Of Business Process Revisions Took About A Decade. or both?. P. M. Hammer. (1990. Malhotra. no. pp. (2003.” Harper Business. operations research. (1994).A. R.176." Harvard Business Review. October). (1993).. evolution. V. Champy.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.