Business Process Management Journal

Critical review of existing BPR methodologies: The need for a holistic approach
George Valiris Michalis Glykas
Article information:
To cite this document:
George Valiris Michalis Glykas, (1999),"Critical review of existing BPR methodologies", Business Process
Management Journal, Vol. 5 Iss 1 pp. 65 - 86
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14637159910249117
Downloaded on: 31 January 2016, At: 17:41 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 82 other documents.
Downloaded by Duquesne University At 17:41 31 January 2016 (PT)

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 3035 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Majed Al-Mashari, Mohamed Zairi, (1999),"BPR implementation process: an analysis of key
success and failure factors", Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 5 Iss 1 pp. 87-112 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/14637159910249108
Majed Al-Mashari, Mohamed Zairi, (2000),"Revisiting BPR: a holistic review of practice
and development", Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 6 Iss 1 pp. 10-42 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/14637150010283045
Maria Vakola, Yacine Rezgui, (2000),"Critique of existing business process re-engineering methodologies:
The development and implementation of a new methodology", Business Process Management Journal, Vol.
6 Iss 3 pp. 238-250 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14637150010325453

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:368748 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 Critical review of existing Need for a
holistic approach
BPR methodologies
The need for a holistic approach
George Valiris 65
University of the Aegean, Chios, Greece
Michalis Glykas
Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK
Keywords BPR, Methodology, Model
Downloaded by Duquesne University At 17:41 31 January 2016 (PT)

Abstract A plethora of BPR methodologies have appeared in the literature during recent years,
however, most of them present serious limitations mainly due to the need for a multi-disciplinary
approach. In this paper we present an overview of existing work in the area of BPR with the aim
of highlighting the different categories of BPR methodologies identified in the literature, their
focus on the redesign process and the general BPR principles that emerge from them. We also
present a BPR methodology called Agent Relationship Morphism Analysis (ARMA) that goes
beyond the limitations of the existing BPR methodologies taking a holistic view of the
organisation. In ARMA the modelling of the business environment is achieved with the use of
three perspectives: the structural, behavioural and process. The use of these three perspectives
provides insight to the relationship between organisational structure and organisational
processes.

1. Introduction
Methodologies exist due to the need of solutions to frequently occurring
problems. According to Wilson (1984) a problem is any expression of concern
about a situation. In this context a methodology represents a structured set of
guide-lines (or principles) which enable an analyst to derive ways of alleviating
this concern.
The problem tackled by BPR is expressed in its definition. The concern that
BPR methodologies try to alleviate is, any identified difference between:
(1) business activities and organisational strategy; and
(2) current and desired productivity of organisational resources.
In order to achieve this a BPR methodology should provide a consistent set of
techniques and guide-lines which will enable the business process redesigner to
reorganise business activities and processes in an organisation.
A plethora of BPR methodologies have been identified in the literature. These
can be classified into two main categories depending on the perspective they take
in BPR: the management accounting and the information system development
categories (Figure 1). In the management accounting perspective the analysts
attempt to reorganise business processes and use IT as an enabler in their effort.
In the Information System (IS) development perspective IS developers need to Business Process Management
Journal, Vol. 5 No. 1, 1999, pp. 65-86.
understand and possibly reorganise business processes so that the introduction # MCB University Press, 1463-7154
 BPMJ
5,1

Use as an enabler for

automation

66
Management Accountants IS developers

Information
Business Processes Technology
Downloaded by Duquesne University At 17:41 31 January 2016 (PT)

Tries to create major

impact on
Figure 1.
The two different
approaches in BPR

of IT has the highest possible impact on them. More recently some

methodologies that view BPR from an organisational theoretic perspective have
started emerging. These concentrate more on the understanding and analysis of
the organisation based on principles like accountabilities and the roles of
individuals that take part in business processes.
If one would try to find a redesign process that satisfies most of the existing
BPR methodologies the result would be as follows:
(1) Establishment of the business vision and objectives.
(2) Identification and focus on the core business processes that support
them.
(3) Modelling and analysis of the business environment.
(4) Streamlining.
(5) Continuous control and improvement of previous steps.
Redesign can be achieved in two modes: incremental and radical. In the former
case can be classified methodologies for improvement and simplification.
These methodologies aim at improving what already exists in the organisation
usually by eliminating non value added activities in order to achieve lower
throughput times and best re-allocation of resources. In the latter case the
redesign or rebuilding of the processes will usually emerge from the application
of ``best practices'' that is achieved with the use of benchmarking. In radical
change redesign will challenge the existing organisational framework and
 might request the introduction of new technology regardless of the impact this Need for a
might have on the personnel's behaviours and attitudes. holistic approach
In the literature there has been some confusion regarding the use of terms
like re-engineering, process improvement and redesign. In the context of this
paper re-engineering is synonymous to radical change and process
improvement to incremental change. Both re-engineering and process
improvement are included in the definition of redesign. 67
Due to the rapid growth of interest in BPR a large number of existing
methodologies have been individually upgraded or combined in order to fall
under the BPR umbrella. Some redesigners resist methodologies and consider
them as a constraint especially in the case of fundamental/radical change
(COBRA, 1994). Their belief is that change management should be the focus
from the beginning to the end of the BPR exercise. Others argue that the use of
Downloaded by Duquesne University At 17:41 31 January 2016 (PT)

methodologies allow people to avoid mistakes and the use of their modeling
techniques can be used as a medium for raising fundamental questions.
In the next subsections we will present some characteristic examples of the
BPR methodologies identified in the literature. The aim is to show the
underlying principles and the stages of the redesign process that each one of
the three categories of BPR methodologies focus on. The methodologies
presented can be considered as ``GLOBAL'' in the sense that they try to
redesign the organisation as a whole with all of its different aspects.

2. Management accounting methodologies

BPR has been taken into consideration by the management accounting
community (Morris and Brandon, 1993; Petrozzo and Stepper, 1994; Short and
Venkatraman, 1992; Adnum, 1993; Butler-Cox, 1991; Lewis, 1993; Morrow and
Hazell, 1992; Eccles, 1993; Davenport, 1993; Hammer, 1993; Smith, 1993).
Accounting methodologies focus on steps 1, 2, 4 and 5 of the redesign process
(as outlined in the numbered list on the previous page, and are primarily case
study driven. In step 3 they concentrate more on business analysis rather than
business modelling which is performed using very simplistic modelling
techniques.

2.1 From manufacturing processes to business processes

The philosophy is that BPR can be applied not only to the manufacturing
processes but also to business processes. Business process redesign has its
roots in the manufacturing industries (Davenport and Short, 1990; Woolfe,
1991). In manufacturing the emphasis is usually on the description of the flow
of material through manufacturing processes. Often a process can be visualised
by studying the floor plan of a plant. The focus is on activities and procedures
and the role of people is seen as performing steps in these procedures and
activities. In this context process management is oriented towards minimising
process cycle and costs while maximising the quality of the end product (Hand,
1991).
 BPMJ However, in accounting, business process management faces additional
5,1 problems and an increased complexity in comparison to manufacturing. Due to
the large number of business processes in the organisation the BPR exercise
has to focus on the core processes that are valued by the customer, the
shareholder or the regulator and are, therefore critical to competitive
advantage. Each core business process is initiated by a need in the market and
68 terminates when the need is satisfied (Eccles, 1993).

2.2 The process perspective and its characteristics

Management accounting BPR methodologies view the organisation from a
process perspective. According to Harrington (1991) the following characteristics
can be assigned to each process.
(1) Flow. The methods for transforming input into output.
Downloaded by Duquesne University At 17:41 31 January 2016 (PT)

(2) Effectiveness. How well customer expectations are met.

(3) Efficiency. How well resources are used to produce an output.
(4) Cycle time. The time taken for the transformation from input to final
output.
(5) Economy. The expense of the entire process.
Understanding these process characteristics is essential for three reasons. First,
it helps identify the problem areas within the process. This information will
provide the basis for redesigning the process. Second, it provides the database
needed to make informed decisions about incremental or radical changes. We
need to see the impact of changes not only on individual activities but also on
the process as a whole and on the departments involved. And third, it is the
basis for setting improvement targets for evaluating results (Harrington, 1991).

2.3 Streamlining and continuous improvement

Simple process modelling techniques like process diagrams and flowcharts are
utilised for business process modelling. The modelling of business processes
provides a sound basis for setting performance indicators that measure the
attainment of strategic goals and objectives by relating these goals and
objectives to the core processes (Lewis, 1993).
Key performance measures can be defined for each core activity within each
process with reference to how they support attainment of critical success
factors. One of the central techniques of target setting is benchmarking
(Hammer, 1993; Butler-Cox, 1991). This entails comparing the operations
performance at business unit, process or activity level with other direct
competitors, other industry players or ``best in class'' companies which have
recognised leadership in particular processes.
The aim of this comparison is to identify the efficiency, effectiveness and
adaptability of the organisational processes. This is called streamlining
(Harrington, 1991). Processes are continually monitored to find improvement
opportunities. People at all levels of the organisation continually work on core
 business processes to improve their performance. Continuous improvement Need for a
(Woolfe, 1991) has been an objective for many change management holistic approach
programmes over the last few years.

3. IS influenced methodologies
Researchers in the field of IS development have started realising the need for
understanding the wider organisational environment within which the IS going 69
to operate (Curtis, 1989). The design and planning of computer applications has
rarely been performed with an initial consideration of the business processes
that the application programs will support. Recently a number of IS
development methodologies have started incorporating enterprise modelling or
business analysis as an initial stage in IS development (Avison and Fitzgerald,
1988).
Downloaded by Duquesne University At 17:41 31 January 2016 (PT)

Enterprise modelling constitutes steps 1, 2 and 3 of the general redesign

process (see earlier list of steps of redesign process). One of the central
arguments is that the evolution of information systems is, to a large extent, due
to changes of the organisational environment and therefore, substantial
improvements can be made in the development and evolution of systems if the
business knowledge is explicitly captured and presented (Loucopoulos et al.,
1991; Palaskas and Loucopoulos, 1989).
Olle (1988) also argues that during the analysis stage of the IS lifecycle an
examination of the existing state of affairs in a given business area of the
enterprise should be undertaken. It may call for the analysis of what is done in
the enterprise and, furthermore, of what needs to be done given the support of
more advanced information systems (Lundeberg, 1982; McGaughey and
Loucopoulos, 1993). They call this stage business analysis and it is regarded as
descriptive rather than prescriptive. Business analysis includes both the
modelling of the business environment and model analysis of the redesign
process (stages 3 and 4).

3.1 IS development methodologies and business strategy

In IS development methodologies strategic and IS planning could be the first
stage of a methodology or could be assumed to have already been carried out.
In the IS literature strategic issues have received less attention than
organisational ones. However, according to Leavitt (1965) the two are
inextricably linked as shown in Figure 2. In recent years some IS development
methodologies have begun to deal directly with strategy (Filkenstain and
Zmud, 1989; Mumford, 1983; Martin, 1990; Pava, 1983; Butler-Cox, 1992;
Boynton and Zmud, 1987) and the matter has appeared in comparisons of
methodologies (Avison and Fitzgerald, 1988; Olle et al., 1986; Olle et al., 1983;
Olle et al., 1982; Fitzgerald et al., 1985; Maddison, 1983; Wood-Harper and
Fitzgerald, 1982).
In IS development methodologies the understanding of the business strategy
is concerned with determining what the goals of the IS under development are
in relation to a changing organisational environment (Noble, 1991). The terms
 BPMJ Structure
5,1

70 Strategy/ Technology
Task

Figure 2.
The link between
Downloaded by Duquesne University At 17:41 31 January 2016 (PT)

strategic and People

organisational issues
according to Leavitt Source: Leavitt, 1965, p. 65

efficiency and effectiveness have a different meaning in the IS world.

Methodologies that address effectiveness (are we doing the right product?)
question the processes and procedures that the IS will affect and the
organisational goals to which they relate (Filkenstain, 1989; Mumford, 1983;
Martin, 1990; Pava, 1983; Bjorn-Andersen, 1984). Efficiency (are we doing the
product right?) relates to business modelling, system design and
implementation and questions the productivity of the people who are involved
in these stages. Even the term redesign (re-engineering) is sometimes used in a
different context. It refers to the best utilisation of the company's IT
infrastructure that is achieved by re-engineering existing IT resources.
Effectiveness is closely related to strategic planning and business modelling.
Some methodologies use the idea of critical success factors (Rockart and
Crescenzi, 1984) or some variant in order to describe business strategy. Others
utilise Porter's value chain (Porter, 1985) or any other technique. OLYMPIOS
(Braesch, 1989; Maire, 1991) for example is a methodology that allows the
design of an IS of a manufacturing enterprise in terms of a logical
representation that it is linked to the company's strategy. The modelling
technique is based on five main concepts: the domain of visibility, the supplier-
consumer relationship, objectives, level of satisfaction and traceability.

3.2 The structural perspective

IS methodologies usually add one more perspective to the process perspective of
the accounting BPR methodologies. This is the structural (or data) perspective
where static business elements are identified. IS methodologies which use
modelling techniques that support both the process and data perspectives are
called structured methodologies (Gane and Sarson, 1977; Jones, 1980; Avison and
Fitzgerald, 1988; Avison, 1985). A characteristic example of structured
methodologies is SADT (Marco, 1988) used by the IDEF0 method that has in
many instances been used for business process modelling and analysis. In
 general, however, process elements are usually modelled using dataflow Need for a
diagrams and data elements are usually modelled using the entity relationship holistic approach
attribute technique developed by Chen (1976).

3.3 The behavioural perspective

A third perspective called the behavioural perspective has also been identified
by the IS community. In the behavioural perspective the life-histories of entities 71
in the data perspective are defined (Brodie and Silva, 1982). The conceptual
framework developed by the ESPRIT project called CIM-OSA consists of a
number of organisational views which together give a complete description of
the organisation (Beeckman, 1989; Jorysz and Vernadat, 1990a; Jorysz and
Vernadat, 1990b; Klittich, 1990). Certain modelling techniques are suggested in
each view but none of them have been standardised giving the modeller
Downloaded by Duquesne University At 17:41 31 January 2016 (PT)

complete freedom to select different techniques if needed. Enterprise

information, functionality and behaviour have been separated into three
different entities, so that changes in one set will have only limited impact on the
other two.
Zachman (1987) identified the need for a business model prior to information
modelling for the design of information systems in his Information System
Architecture (ISA). He suggested the use of ``entity-relationship-entity''
diagrams for modelling the business entities in the organisation. The purpose
of the ISA framework is to show how different techniques that focus on one or
few related aspects of software development fit together. It is a taxonomy with
30 boxes or cells organised into three columns (representing the data, process
and network perspectives) and five rows (representing the different stages of
the ISA lifecycle). The ISA framework is a superset of IBM's AD/Cycle[1]
(Davidson, 1993; Mercurio et al., 1990).
Most of the methodologies that include all three perspectives (structural,
behavioural and process) can be viewed in a matrix form. Like both Zachman's
and CIM-OSA, James Martin's Information Engineering framework can be
viewed as a matrix (Martin, 1990). Martin's matrix has two columns representing
data and activities. There are also five rows addressing: Strategy ± technology
impact; Strategy ± Enterprise Model; Business Area Analysis (BAA); System
Design; and System Construction and Cutover (Implementation).
The GRAI (Akif, 1991) method[2] also uses a conceptual model that is based
on the decomposition of a production system into three subsystems: the physical
subsystem (employees, materials, machines etc. behaviour), the information
subsystem (structure) and the decision making subsystem (process).

3.4 The use of object orientation.

More recently object oriented descriptions are used during the business
analysis stage, since these tend to be easily communicating with nonmodelling
experts in organisations due to their anthropomorphic nature (Iivari, 1990a;
Iivari, 1990b; Fichman and Kemerer, 1993; Ramackers and Verrijn, 1991).
 BPMJ M.E.R.O.DE (Dedene, 1992) follows the ISA framework proposed by
5,1 Zachman and puts emphasis on object oriented concepts based on the three
perspectives (data, behaviour and process) of IS development. The main theme
is that software systems development should start from a simulation of the
business using object relations and structures. Once the business model is
completed the information functions are developed and maintained around the
72 business model. This aggregate model is then transformed into an
implementation model.
ALBERT[3] (Dubois et al., 1993; Dubois et al., 1994; Dubois et al., 1992) is a
formal requirements specification language that favours the object oriented
paradigm. The language is based on an informal framework called ERAE
using an appropriate temporal logic with the addition of three new extensions:
Downloaded by Duquesne University At 17:41 31 January 2016 (PT)

(1) the introduction of agents;

(2) the introduction of actions; and
(3) the identification of typical patterns or constraints.
OORASS[4] (Hoydalsvik and Sindre, 1993) is an object oriented development
methodology originating from the Centre for Industrial Research (SI) in
Norway. The methodology is based on a metaphor from organisation theory
and is composed of two parts, a role modelling technique and a type
specification technique based on classes.

3.5 Comparison with the accounting methodologies

In comparison with the accounting methodologies, IS methodologies provide
richer organisational models by incorporating the two additional perspectives.
However, IS methodologies which try to model all three of these currently face
the problem of their integration. The most significant problem comes from the
fact that different modelling techniques that were built at different points in
time and for different purposes are amalgamated. The stress here is on
modelling with an aim to understand the organisational environment. Issues
like cost, cycle time reduction, streamlining and continuous improvement are
not usually encountered in any IS methodology. This is what Jackson (Jackson
and Zaue, 1993) calls the indicative side of systems development also known as
domain analysis. Domain models should describe the domain explicitly; they
should distinguish domain properties that are independent of the system from
those that the system is required to enforce.

4. Organisational theory based methodologies

Lately, a few methodologies have started to apply organisational theoretic
principles to BPR. These attempts have mainly started due to the identification
that accounting and IS methodologies do not provide models of the
organisational setting based on organisation theory and as a consequence fail
to understand the relation between organisational actors and business
processes.
 A few of the IS methodologies presented in the previous section have included Need for a
some organisational theory concepts. CIM-OSA for example has included an holistic approach
organisational view. ALBERT, OLYMPIOS and GRAI have also included
organisational concepts in their methodologies.
The organisational theory based methodologies add more elements to
business modelling and analysis by addressing the need to focus on people,
their accountabilities and their roles. 73
In a recent article, Sowa and Zachman (1992) have identified the need for
expressing agency and accountabilities in the ISA framework developed by the
latter. So they included a ``who'' column that expresses the need to abstract the
concept of people out of the real world enterprise. In its recent form the
methodology can be identified as organisational theory based.
Scherr (1993) has discovered that a number of enterprises have started to
Downloaded by Duquesne University At 17:41 31 January 2016 (PT)

apply process management principles to business processes. BPR

methodologies based on the manufacturing and software development
paradigms have proven to be more and more incomplete. Business processes
occurring outside manufacturing situations are almost completely never
defined. Scherr incorporates a focus on people and their accountabilities to
resolve this problem. Accountability means what a person is held responsible
for by others. He also pays particular attention to people's roles within the
organisation. Driven by a similar objective the ORDIT project has devised a
diagrammatic enterprise modelling language to represent the structure of the
organisation (Dobson and McDermid, 1989). The three essential elements of the
enterprise model are agency, activities and resources[5].
Yu, 1993 and Yu and Mycopoulos, 1994 have developed a methodology for
organisation modelling based on the distinction of three main types of agent
dependencies: goal, task and resource. In goal dependency, one agent, the
depender, depends on another, the dependee, for the fulfilment of a goal. In task
dependency, a depender agent depends on some dependee agent for the
performance of a task. In resource dependency, a depender agent presupposes
the availability of a resource, which is made available by the dependee agent.
For each type of dependency, operators with three kinds of grades of strength
are provided. On the depender side: general, committed and critical. These
indicate the degree to which the agent will be affected if what the agent
depends on fails. On the dependee side, the two grades of strength, general and
committed, indicate the effort that the agent will put in to meet the dependency.
Each dependency operator relates an agent to an object. RML concepts are
utilised that distinguish among three basic types of objects: entities, activities
and assertions. Each dependency operator relates an agent to an object.
Requirements Modelling Language (RML) (Greenspan, 1984) concepts are
utilised that distinguish among three basic types of objects: entities, activities
and assertions.
Recent research in software process modelling supports a wide range of
objectives one of which is support for process improvement. According to Curtis
et al. (1992) the three most frequently used constructs in process modelling are:
 BPMJ (1) agent;
5,1 (2) role; and
(3) artifact (resources, transactions).
He also argues that process modelling languages and representations usually
present four identified perspectives: functional, behavioural, organisational
74 and informational.
STRIM (Ould, 1992) is a method for business process redesign which
includes the modelling of organisational processes. STRIM contains a method
for analysing processes and two languages with which a process can be
described. The process modelling method has two phases: an informal fact
gathering phase and a formal descriptive phase.
Downloaded by Duquesne University At 17:41 31 January 2016 (PT)

KAOS[6] (Dardenne et al., 1994) is a metamodel for goal directed

requirements acquisition that supports most of the concepts presented in
organisational theory based methodologies. The KAOS approach is composed
of three components:
(1) a conceptual model for acquiring and structuring requirements models,
with an associated acquisition language;
(2) a set of strategies for elaborating models in this framework; and
(3) an automated assistant to provide guidance in the acquisition process
according to such strategies.
Dietz (1994) has developed a class of methods called DEMO (Dynamic Essential
Modelling of Organisations) based on the distinction between subjects (agents)
and objects (resources), the analysis of human communication, a well defined
rigorous system concept and a conception of system dynamics.
The organisational theory based methodologies emerged in order to resolve
the confusion created from IS methodologies and as a result focus on steps 1, 2
and 3 of the redesign process. Their focus is on people (agents), their
accountabilities, their roles, their interactions, their activities and their use of
available resources. In IS methodologies, techniques like entity relationship
(Chen, 1976), dataflow diagrams, Jackson's data streams (Jackson, 1983) etc.
were promoted to business analysis techniques. These actually represent a
model of some business situations but lack a sufficient level of abstraction to
represent the business independent of IS design and implementation issues.
Employees and their roles for example appear as data entities in entity
relationship diagrams. People's actions and interactions appear as processes
and data flows respectively in dataflow diagrams. Zachman (1987) was one of
the first researchers to identify this problem and proposed the attachment of a
different meaning to concepts used in IS design techniques. In the ISA
framework an entity in the business analysis stage represents a business entity
and a relationship a business rule or strategy (Zachman, 1987).
 5. Limitations of existing BPR methodologies and the objective of Need for a
this research holistic approach
The forementioned methodologies were developed for other purposes and were
later re-labeled to fall under the BPR umbrella. Most of these re-labeled
methodologies appear to have many limitations and there are only a few
exemptions where methodologies were developed solely for BPR (Davenport,
1993; Harrington, 1991; Hammer, 1993; Morris and Brandon, 1993; Petrozzo and 75
Stepper, 1994; Ould, 1992). However, even these methodologies are non
systematic[7] and their emphasis is more on hands on experience and case
studies. The limitations of existing methodologies can be summarised as
follows:
. There is a lack of systematic approach that can lead a process redesigner
Downloaded by Duquesne University At 17:41 31 January 2016 (PT)

through a series of steps for the achievement of process redesign. Most

of the existing methodologies are based either on real life experience
with little attention on the modelling and analysis of the business
environment or vice versa.
. There is a big division in the BPR literature between methodologies that
concentrate either on process improvement or process innovation. The
main difference is on the way organisational change is understood. In
the first case change is performed in an incremental fashion whereas in
the latter in a radical way. However, in many cases a combination of the
two approaches has yielded the most impressive results.
. There is a need for an integrated holistic and individualistic view of the
organisation.Mostmethodologiesconcentrateonorganisationalprocesses
without paying any attention to the roles and responsibilities of the
employees that carry out the activities that compose these processes.
. Most methodologies are oriented towards specialists rather than being
oriented to be used by organisational managers and people who want to
carry out BPR in their organisation.
. Most methodologies use a more black and white approach. For example,
in some methodologies cost is the central issue whereas in others generic
management and the use of IT is the main objective.
. Most methodologies fail to recognise the importance of a diagnostic
stage at the beginning of the redesign process. During this stage the
BPR scope, mode and objectives are determined.
. There is inadequate support for storage and access of gathered
information during and after the redesign process, especially for non
participants in the redesign exercise.
. Business modelling[8] is performed using either inadequate descriptive
notations from management accounting or through poor use of
graphical notations that were created for software development and do
not take into account organisational issues.
 BPMJ . Most of business analysis performed is based on subjective rather than
5,1 objective analytical methods.
. There is a lack of integrated tool sets that allow modelling and analysis
of the business environment. Most of the existing tools for modelling
come from the area of software development and usually concentrate on
76 conceptual business modelling. At present there is a lack of business
analysis tools that are integrated with the business modelling ones.
. There is no formal underpinning to ensure consistency across models.
When graphical notations are used in business modelling and business
redesign there is no means of verifying the logical consistency of the
resulting models. This creates a feeling of insecurity to the business
process redesigner that his work might be undermined by the
Downloaded by Duquesne University At 17:41 31 January 2016 (PT)

company's cynics.
. BPR is a new discipline that is in need of case studies that provide
justification of the benefits it can provide to the organisation. BPR
should be applied in different organisational contexts in different
cultures and different organisation sizes. Most of the existing
methodologies are applied in western countries where the business
environment is more suitable to the BPR philosophy.
The major objective of this research is to propose a systematic methodology
that can help people to successfully carry out BPR in their organisation. The
rest of this paper addresses and provides solutions to some of the
forementioned limitations.

6. The Agent Relationship Morphism Analysis (ARMA) Methodology

The major contribution of this research is a BPR methodology called Agent
Relationship Morphism Analysis (ARMA). The methodology takes a holistic
view of the organisation by combining accounting BPR principles (efficiency,
effectiveness, cost etc.) with organisational theoretic concepts (roles, account-
abilities etc.) and some powerful modelling techniques from IS development
that have been upgraded to become systematic business modelling tools. An
overview of ARMA is presented in Figure 3.
Some of the main contributions of ARMA (and as a consequence this
research) in the general field of BPR include:
(1) It provides a theoretical basis for BPR, which takes into account issues
from accounting, organisational theory and IS development.
(2) It highlights the importance of organisational strategy and its link to
business processes throughout the redesign exercise.
(3) It provides a set of modelling techniques, to support the modelling of
business processes that go beyond the limitations of existing modelling
techniques.
 Need for a
Accounting Methodologies
IS Methodologies
holistic approach
Efficiency,
Three perspectives, effectiveness,
object orientation etc. cost etc.

ARMA 77

Focus on people,
roles,
accountabilities etc.
Downloaded by Duquesne University At 17:41 31 January 2016 (PT)

Figure 3.
Organisation Theory The influence of existing
Based Methodologies
methodologies in ARMA

(4) It views the organisation from both an individualistic (employee level)

and a holistic (business process level) view and integrates both static
and dynamic aspects of the organisation.
(5) It provides a set of business analysis techniques that assist in objective
analysis of the business models.
(6) It provides guidance for successful redesign and setting up a system for
continuous improvement.
(7) It highlights the importance of BPR education and IT.
(8) It has evaluated BPR in different cultures and organisational
environments.
Table I presents the stages of the methodology, the inputs, outputs as well as
the benefits of each stage.
The key issues of this research are described in the following sections.

6.1 A diagnostic phase at the beginning of BPR

Although the alignment between business process and strategy has been noted
in many methodologies only a few of them (Davenport, 1993; Woolfe, 1991)
place significant emphasis on the development and communication of a broad
strategic vision at the beginning of the redesign effort. Our research has shown
that widespread participation in the development of the vision is very critical to
a company's ability to gain the best results out of BPR.
During this diagnostic phase top management are obliged to determine the
risk they are willing to undertake according to the future performance they
want to achieve. The scope, and more importantly, the mode (being incremental
or radical or a combination of the two) is determined and the BPR vision is
created and communicated to all company employees.
 Downloaded by Duquesne University At 17:41 31 January 2016 (PT)

5,1

78

process
BPMJ

Table I.

and the benefits

The inputs, outputs

of the ARMA redesign

derived from the stages
Stage Input Output Benefit

1. Establishing the 1. Internal company data 1. Scope of BPR 1. Clarification, determination and
vision and 2. Management aspirations: interviews with 2. Mode of BPR transmission of BPR objectives
objectives, the middle management and top management (incremental, radical) 2. Understanding of corporate culture
scope and mode 3. Customer surveys 3. BPR vision and 3. Minimisation of managements' risk in
of BPR 4. Benchmark data objectives introducing BPR in the organisation
4. Creation of the redesign team
2. Business modelling 1. Scope of BPR 1. Conceptual ARM, 1 Conceptual models
2. Mode of BPR ALC/OLC and . Understanding of the contractual
operation schemata relationships of organisational agents,
2. Formal models of their responsibilities and transactions
ARM, ALCs/OLCs (the what)
. Understanding the roles and activities of
organisational agents and the lifecycles
of organisational resources
Understanding of business process (the
how)
2. The formal framework
. Resolves ambiguities of the informal
model by imposing greater precision
. Adds the concept of business rules
. Provides the option of verification of the
resulting formal models (handling of
personal risk)
3. Business analysis 1. Conceptual ARM, ALC/OLC and operation 1. Would be business 1. Holistic analysis of the organisation
schemata models 2. Identification of areas that subsequent
2. Formal models of ARM, ALCs/OLCs 2. Solutions for redesign efforts will concentrate
3. Percent of effort per activity to determine redesign
cost of activities and processes
(continued)
 Downloaded by Duquesne University At 17:41 31 January 2016 (PT)

Stage Input Output Benefit

4. Redesign 1. Would be business models 1. Finalised would be 1. Employee participation in redesign

2. Solutions for redesign models 2. Process focus
3. ARM and ALC/OLC models of existing 2. Redesigned 3. Customer focus
processes organisation 4. Process teams and their performance
4. Presentations and discussions with measurements
employees 5. Market metaphor for organisational
behaviour
6. Increase in levels of efficiency and
effectiveness
7 Flexibility and timely response to market
needs
5. Continuous 1. Finalised would be models 1. Educated employees 1. Employee awareness for the need of
improvement 2. Redesigned organisations 2. IT systems and continuous improvement
procedures for 2. Continuous performance assessment
continuous 3. Continuous fundamental rethinking
improvement 4 Guarantee that the BPR philosophy will
continue to flourish in the organisation
5. Proper communication, coordination and
control established in the organisation

Table I.
holistic approach

79
Need for a
 BPMJ 6.2 A contractual view of BPR
5,1 One of the main benefits that BPR brings to the organisation is the focus on
core business processes. Organisations that have tried to focus on core business
processes tend in many cases to subcontract non core support and in some
cases management processes to smaller and more flexible organisations.
In cases of extra capacity of capabilities companies try to outsource some of
80 their extra capabilities and as a result new contractual arrangements are
emerging. Focusing on the core processes, therefore, instantly raises the
question of subcontracting and modified contractual arrangements in the
business environment.
For this reason we believe that BPR should be viewed from a contractual
perspective. Moreover, we believe that the relationships (including the
authority relationships) and processes internal to the organisation should be
Downloaded by Duquesne University At 17:41 31 January 2016 (PT)

also viewed from a contractual perspective. This implants a sense of

continuous improvement in the organisation since the value of organisational
processes can be continuously assessed by their internal clients and their cost
can be continuously compared against the cost of subcontracting this process
to an outside vendor.

6.3 Relationship between organisational structure and processes

Some methodologies try to provide some insight to the relationship between
organisational structure and processes. In ARMA this is usually achieved with
the use of three perspectives: the structural, the behavioural and process, in the
business modelling stage. Structural aspects are described in the structural
perspective whereas the dynamic aspects are described in the behaviour and
process perspectives.
However, all three perspectives identified are not fully addressed in most
methodologies. In addition, organisational theory concepts are usually applied
to isolated perspectives and the potential of a richer organisational
methodology that supports all three perspectives has so far been unexplored.
Existing methodologies are in their early stages and regard the issue of the
relationship of organisational structure and processes as an area of further
research rather than an achievement. In ARMA we have introduced and
defined organisational theoretic concepts in all three perspectives in an
integrated manner. The connection between structure and processes in
business modelling in ARMA is shown in the following Figure 4.

6.4 Link between BPR, systems thinking and object orientation

We believe that there are great benefits that can emerge from applying systems
thinking ideas in BPR. This has been apparent in some BPR methodologies
that model organisational processes using systems ideas. One of the main
reasons for adopting systems thinking is the need for modelling the complexity
of the organisational environment (Checkland and Scholes, 1990).
Several researchers in Object Oriented (OO) analysis and design argue that
object orientation is very suitable for business modelling because it takes a
 Need for a
holistic approach
BEHAVIOUR/
PROCESS:
Agent/Object
Lifecycles

81

STRUCTURAL:
Agent
Downloaded by Duquesne University At 17:41 31 January 2016 (PT)

Relationship
Modelling Figure 4.
The three perspectives
in ARMA

significantly anthropomorphic point of view (Wirfs-Brock et al., 1990; Taylor,

1992; Helm et al., 1990; Dedene, 1990). OO design methodologies of this type are
called ``responsibility driven'' and encourage a view of the world as a system of
cooperating and collaborating agents.
In this research systems thinking and organisational theoretic concepts have
been incorporated in OO modelling techniques to produce more rigid
techniques suitable for business modelling.

6.5 Formalised BPR models

Most BPR methodologies use diagrammatic notations (like dataflow diagrams,
the entity relationship attribute technique etc.) for modelling business
processes. These notations are valuable as informal frameworks in which
intuitions about the enterprise may be expressed but they lack the semantic
content necessary to support reasoning.
Other methodologies use automata theoretic notations in which a system is
modelled by its trajectories through a state space. However the composition of
such models inevitably leads to the phenomenon known as ``state explosion''.
Petri nets (Battiston et al., 1989) were designed to overcome this problem
better than classical automata theory could. But composition and the
combination of behaviour with information structure still pose severe problems
(Cohen and Malteno, 1993). In this research we propose the use of formal
mathematical notations as a means of introducing the concept of business rules
and verifying the logical consistency of the diagrammatic models.

6.6 A different view of redesign

Most BPR methodologies view the implementation of redesign as a means of
transforming the organisational structure from a hierarchical to a process team
based. Some methodologies (Butler-Cox, 1991) argue that for some period of
 BPMJ time there will be a hybrid situation where process teams will coexist with
5,1 functional units in a hierarchical form.
In ARMA we believe that the main emphasis during business analysis and
redesign should be the establishment of processes and structure that support
each other. In this way we can create functional units that preserve the
organisational cohesion provided by the organisational hierarchies and the
82 flexibility of process thinking.

7. Conclusions
In this paper, we presented a methodology called ARMA that goes beyond the
limitations of the existing BPR methodologies. The major strength of ARMA in
comparison to other BPR methodologies is its holistic and systematic approach
to BPR. The holistic BPR approach is the result of incorporating principles
Downloaded by Duquesne University At 17:41 31 January 2016 (PT)

from the three categories of BPR methodologies identified in the literature: the
management accounting, the IS development and the organisational theoretic.
These principles have been used in different stages in ARMA's redesign
process and have contributed significantly in the development of tools and
techniques that provide systematic support to the user in all stages. ARMA is
not directed only towards BPR specialists. Its principles and tools are
associated with the theoretical basis required to be understood by anybody
who wants to get involved in redesign.

Notes
1. IBM have also identified the need for enterprise modelling during the requirements stage
of their Application Development (AD) Cycle architecture. The AD/Cycle methodology is
based on the traditional lifecycle approach with Business/Enterprise Modelling in the
Requirements elicitation stage.
2. French for ``Graphes a Resultats et Activities Interrlies``.
3. Agent-oriented Language for Building and Elicitating Requirements for real-Time systems
(ALBERT) is a formal requirements specification language that was developed by the
participants of the ESPRIT II project called Icarus.
4. Object Oriented Role Analysis, Synthesis and Structuring is a methodology used by the
Norwegian company TASKON.
5. The objective of an ESPRIT project called ORDIT (Organisational Requirements Definition
for Information Technology) is to create a methodology which supports a community of
stakeholders who wish to consider the use of an IS in an organisational setting.
6. KAOS stands for Knowledge Acquisition in Automated Specification
7. With the exception of [Morris and Brandon, p. 93] and [Ould, p. 93] who have made an
attempt to provide systematic methodologies.
8. A survey in the area of business modelling revealed that modellers use whatever methods
and tools they do have to their best possible advantage and there is a great need for
systematic modelling tools.

References
Adnum, D. (1993), ``Using performance indicators for effective public sector management'',
Management Accounting, January.
 Akif, J-C. (1991), ``Consistency analysis of PMS based on GRAI modelling'', in Doumeingts, G., Need for a
Browne, J. and Romljanovich, M. (Eds), Computer Applications of Production and
Engineering (CAPE 91): Integrated Aspects, Elsevier Publishers, North-Holland. holistic approach
Avison, D.E. (1985), Information Systems Development: A Database Approach, Blackwell
Scientific Publications, Oxford.
Avison, D.E. and Fitzgerald, G. (1988), Information Systems Development: Methodologies,
Techniques and Tools, Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.
Battiston, E. et al. (1989), ``OBJSA Nets: a class of high level nets having objects as domains'', in
83
Proceedings of the International Conference on Applications and Theory of Petri Nets.
Beeckman, D. (1989), ``CIM-OSA: computer integrated manufacturing open systems
architecture'', International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing.
Bjorn-Andersen, N. (1984), ``Challenge to certainty'', in Bemelmans, T.M.A. (Ed.), Beyond
Productivity: Information Systems Development for Organisational Effectiveness, North-
Holland, Amsterdam.
Downloaded by Duquesne University At 17:41 31 January 2016 (PT)

Boynton, A.C. and Zmud, R.W. (1987), ``Information technology planning in the 90's: directions
for practice and research'', MIS Quarterly, March.
Braesch, C. (1989), ``Approche de modelisation du systeme de production d'une enterprise
manufacturiere'', PhD thesis, University of France-Comte.
Brodie, M.L. and Silva, E. (1982). ``Active and passive component modelling: ACM/PCM'', in
Information Systems Methodologies: A Comparative Review, Olle, T. and Sol, H.G. (Eds),
A.A. Verrijn-Stuart, North-Holland, Netherlands.
Butler-Cox Foundation (1991), The Role of Information Technology in Transforming the
Business: Management Summary, Report 79, January.
Butler-Cox Foundation (1992), Strategic Alignment: Management Summary, April.
Checkland, P. and Scholes, J. (1990), Soft Systems Methodology in Action, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Chen, P.P. (1976), ``The entity-relationship model: toward a unified view of data'', ACM
Transactions on Database Systems, Vol. 1 No. 1.
COBRA (1994), The COBRA Methodology Manual, prepared by the COBRA ESPRIT Project
Participants.
Cohen, B. and Malteno, B. (1993), ``The common base specification of the UK NHS'', in
Proceedings of Medical Information Europe.
Curtis, G. (1989), Business Information Systems: Analysis, Design and Practice, Addison-Wesley,
Wokingham.
Curtis, G., Krasner, H. and Iscoe, N. (1992), ``Process modelling'', Communications of the ACM,
Vol. 35 No. 9, September.
Dardenne, A., van Lamsweerde, A. and Fickas, S. (1994), ``Goal-directed requirements
acquisition'', to appear in Science of Computer Programming.
Davenport, T.H. (1993), Process Innovation: Reengineering Work Through Information
Technology, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Davidson, W.H. (1993), ``Beyond re-engineering: The three phases of business transformation'',
IBM Systems Journal, Vol. 32 No. 1.
Dedene, F. (1992), ``A practical approach to consistent object oriented business modelling'', in
Proceedings of 5th International Conference: Putting into Practice Methods and Tools for
Information System Design, Nantes, France.
Dietz, J.L.G. (1994), ``Business modelling for business redesign'', in Proceedings of the Twenty-
Seventh Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences HICSS, Nunamaker,
J.F. and Sprague, R.H. (Eds), IEEE Computer Society Press, San Diego, CA.
 BPMJ Dobson, J.E. and McDermid, J.A. (1989), ``Security models and enterprise models'', in Landwehr,
C.E. (Ed.), Database Security: Status and Prospects II, Elsevier Science, Amsterdam.
5,1 Dubois, E., Dubois, P. and Petit, M. (1993), ``Elicitating and formalising requirements for C.I.M
information systems'', Rolland, C., Bodart, F. and Cauvet, C. (Eds), Proceedings of 5th
Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering, Springer-Verlag, Paris,
France.
Dubois, E., Dubois, P. and Petit, M. (1994), ``ALBERT: an agent-oriented language for building
84 and elicitating requirements for real-time systems'', in Nunamaker, J.F. and Sprague, R.H.
(Eds), Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh Annual Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences HICSS, IEEE Computer Society Press.
Dubois, E., Dubois, P. and Rifaut, A. (1992), ``Elaborating, structuring and expressing formal
requirements of composite systems'', in Loucopoulos, P. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 4th
Conference in Advanced Information Systems Engineering, Springer-Verlag, Manchester,
May.
Downloaded by Duquesne University At 17:41 31 January 2016 (PT)

Eccles, P. (1993), ``Planning for improved performance'', Management Accounting, January.

Fichman, R.G. and Kemerer, C.F. (1993), ``Adoption of software engineering process innovations:
the case of object orientation'', Sloan Management Review, Winter.
Filkenstain, C. (1989), An Introduction to Information Engineering: From Strategic Planning to
Information Systems, Addison-Wesley, Wokingham.
Fitzerald, G., Stokes, N. and Wood, J.R.G. (1985), ``Feature analysis of contemporary information
systems methodologies'', Computer Journal, Vol. 28 No. 3.
Gane, C. and Sarson, T. (1977), Structured Systems Analysis: Tools and Techniques, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Greenspan, S.J. (1984), Requirements Modelling: A Knowledge Representation Approach to
Software Requirements Definition, PhD Thesis, Department of Computer Science,
University of Toronto.
Hammer, M. (1993), Reengineering The Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution, N.
Brealey Publishing, London.
Hand, M. (1991), ``Designing quality into business processes'', Management Accounting, January.
Harrington, H.J. (1991), Business Process Improvement, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Helm, R., Holland, I.M. and Gangopadhyay (1990), ``Contacts: specifying behavioural
compositions in object oriented systems'', in Proceedings of the OOPSLA '90, ACM Press,
Ottawa, Canada, October.
Hoydalsvik, G.M. and Sindr, G. (1993), ``Object oriented role modelling for the analysis and
design of organisational information systems'', in Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Annual
Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences, IEEE Computer Society Press, San
Diego, CA.
Iivari, J. (1990a), ``Hierarchical spiral model for information system and software development,
part 1: theoretical background'', Information and Software Technology, Vol. 32 No. 7.
Iivari, J. (1990b), ``Hierarchical spiral model for information system and software development,
part 2: design process'', Information and Software Technology, Vol. 32 No. 8.
Jackson, M.A. and Zave, P. (1993), ``Domain descriptions'', in Finkelstein, A. (Ed.), Proceedings of
the IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering ± RE '93, IEEE
Computer Society Press, San Diego, CA, January 4-6, 1993.
Jones, C.B. (1980), Software Development: A Rigorous Approach, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
NJ.
Jorysz, H.R. and Vernadat, F.B. (1990a), ``CIM-OSA, part 1: total enterprise modelling and
function view'', International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 3 No. 4.
 Jorysz, H.R. and Vernadat, F.B. (1990b), ``CIM-OSA, part 2: information view'', International Need for a
Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 3 No. 4.
holistic approach
Klittich, M. (1990), ``CIM-OSA, part 3: integrating infrastructure'', International Journal of
Computer Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 3 No. 4.
Leavitt, H. (1965), ``Applied organisational change in industry: structural, technological and
humanistic approaches'', in March, J. (Ed.), Handbook of Organisations, Chapter 27, Rand
McNally, Chicago, IL.
85
Lewis, C. (1993), ``A source of competitive advantage'', Management Accounting, January.
Loucopoulos, P., Theodoulidis, C. and Pantazis, D. (1991), ``Business rules modelling: conceptual
modelling and object oriented specifications'', in Object Oriented Approach in Information
Systems, Van Assche, F., Moulin, B. and Rolland, C. (Eds), North-Holland, Netherlands.
Lundeberg, M. (1982), ``The ISAC approach to specification of information systems and its
application to the organisation of an IFIP working conference'', in Information Systems
Downloaded by Duquesne University At 17:41 31 January 2016 (PT)

Methodologies: A Comparative Review, Olle, T., Sol, H.G. and Verrijn-Stuart, A.A. (Eds),
North-Holland, Netherlands.
Maddison, R.N. (1983), Information Systems Methodologies, Wiley, Heyden, Chichester.
Maire, J.L. (1991), ``OLYMPIOS: un modele de conception du systeme d'information d'une
enterprise manufacturiere ± Application a l'audit'', PhD thesis, University of Savoie,
France.
Marco, D. (1988), SADT: Structured Analysis and Design Techniques, McGraw-Hill, New York,
NY.
Martin, J. (1990), Information Engineering Book II: Planning and Analysis, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
McGaughey, R. and Gibson, M. (1993), ``The repository/encyclopedia: essential to information
engineering and fully integrated CASE'', Journal of Systems Management, March.
Mercurio, V.J., Meyers, B.F., Nisbet, A.M. and Radin, G. (1990), ``AD/cycle strategy and
architecture'', IBM Systems Journal, Vol. 29 No. 2.
Morris, D. and Brandon, J. (1993), Re-engineering Your Business, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Morrow, M. and Hazell, M. (1992), "Activity mapping for business process redesign'',
Management Accounting, February.
Mumford, E. (1983), Designing Participatively. Manchester Business School, Manchester.
Noble, F. (1991), ``Seven ways to develop office systems: a managerial comparison of office
system development methodologies'', The Computer Journal, Vol. 34 No. 2.
Olle, T.W. (1988), Information Systems Methodologies: A Framework for Understanding,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Olle, T.W., Sol, H.G. and Tully, C.J. (1983), Information Systems Design Methodologies: A Feature
Analysis, North-Holland, Amsterdam.
Olle, T.W., Sol H.G. and Verrijn-Stuart A.A. (1982), Information Systems Design Methodologies:
A Comparative Review, North-Holland, Amsterdam.
Olle, T.W., Sol, H.G. and Verrijn-Stuart, A.A. (1986), Information Systems Design Methodologies:
Improving the Practice, North-Holland, Amsterdam.
Ould, M.A. (1992), ``Process modelling with RADS'', IOPener, Vol. 1 No. 5, November.
Pava, C. (1983), Managing New Office Technology: An Organisational Strategy, Free Press,
Glencoe, IL.
Petrozzo, D.P. and Stepper, J.C. (1994), Successful Reengineering, Van-Nostrand Reinhold, New
York, NY.
 BPMJ Porter, M. (1985), Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance, Free
Press, New York, NY.
5,1 Ramackers, G.J. and Verrijn, A. (1991), ``Integrating information systems perspectives with
objects'', in Van Assche, F., Moulin, B. and Rolland, C. (Eds), Object Oriented Approach in
Information Systems, North-Holland, Netherlands.
Rockart, J.F. and Crescenzi, A.D. (1984), ``Engaging top management in information technology'',
Sloan Management Review, Summer.
86 Scherr, A.L. (1993), ``A new approach to business processes'', IBM Systems Journal, Vol. 32 No. 1.
Short, J.E. and Venkatraman, N. (1992), ``Beyond business process redesign: redefining Baxter's
business network'', Sloan Management Review, Fall.
Smith (1993), ``Business process reengineering minitrack'', in Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth
Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences HICSS, IEEE Computer
Society Press, San Diego, CA.
Sowa, J.F. and Zachman, J.A. (1992), ``Extending and formalising the framework for information
Downloaded by Duquesne University At 17:41 31 January 2016 (PT)

systems architecture'', IBM Systems Journal, Vol. 31 No. 3.

Taylor, D. (1992), Object Oriented Information Systems: Planning and Implementation, Wiley,
New York, NY.
Verjin-Stuart, A.A. (1987), ``Themes and trends in information systems'', Computer, Vol. 30 No. 2.
Wilson, B. (1984), Systems: Concepts, Methodologies and Applications, Wiley, London.
Wirfs-Brock, R., Wilkerson, B. and Winer, L. (1990), Designing Object-Oriented Software,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliff, NJ.
Wood-Harper, A.T. and Fitzerald, G. (1982), ``A taxonomy of current approaches to systems
analysis'', Computer, Vol. 25 No. 1.
Woolfe, R. (1991), ``Managing and redesigning business processes to achieve dramatic
performance improvements'', European Business Journal.
Yu, E. (1993), ``Modelling organisations for information systems requirements engineering'', in
Finkelstein, A. (Ed.), Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Requirements
Engineering ± RE'93, IEEE Computer Society Press, San Diego, CA, 4-6 January.
Yu, E. and Mylopoulos, J. (1994), ``Using goals, rules and methods to support reasoning in
business process reengineering'', in Proceedings of the 14th Hawaii International
Conference on Systems Science, Hawaii, IEEE Computer Society Press, San Diego, CA, 1-4
January.
Zachman, J.A. (1987), ``A framework for information systems architecture'', IBM Systems
Journal, Vol. 26 No. 3.
 This article has been cited by:

1. Ali Khosravi. 2016. Business process rearrangement and renaming. Business Process Management Journal
22:1, 116-139. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. Rob J. B. Vanwersch, Khurram Shahzad, Irene Vanderfeesten, Kris Vanhaecht, Paul Grefen, Liliane
Pintelon, Jan Mendling, Godefridus G. van Merode, Hajo A. Reijers. 2016. A Critical Evaluation and
Framework of Business Process Improvement Methods. Business & Information Systems Engineering 58,
43-53. [CrossRef]
3. Premaratne Samaranayake, Ann Dadich, Kate J Hayes, Terrence Sloan. 2015. Patient-journey modelling
and simulation in computed tomography. Business Process Management Journal 21:5, 988-1014. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
4. Nikolaos A. Panayiotou, Sotiris P. Gayialis, Nikolaos P. Evangelopoulos, Petros K. Katimertzoglou. 2015. A
business process modeling-enabled requirements engineering framework for ERP implementation. Business
Process Management Journal 21:3, 628-664. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by Duquesne University At 17:41 31 January 2016 (PT)

5. Samsul Islam, Tava Olsen, M. Daud Ahmed. 2013. Reengineering the seaport container truck hauling
process. Business Process Management Journal 19:5, 752-782. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
6. Gregor Zellner. 2013. Towards a framework for identifying business process redesign patterns. Business
Process Management Journal 19:4, 600-623. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
7. Nazanin Eftekhari, Peyman Akhavan. 2013. Developing a comprehensive methodology for BPR projects
by employing IT tools. Business Process Management Journal 19:1, 4-29. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
8. Victor Poudelet, Julie-Anne Chayer, Manuele Margni, Robert Pellerin, Réjean Samson. 2012. A process-
based approach to operationalize life cycle assessment through the development of an eco-design decision-
support system. Journal of Cleaner Production 33, 192-201. [CrossRef]
9. Lila Rao, Gunjan Mansingh, Kweku-Muata Osei-Bryson. 2012. Building ontology based knowledge maps
to assist business process re-engineering. Decision Support Systems 52, 577-589. [CrossRef]
10. Michael Glykas. 2011. Performance Measurement in Business Process, Workflow and Human Resource
Management. Knowledge and Process Management 18:10.1002/kpm.v18.4, 241-265. [CrossRef]
11. Gregor Zellner. 2011. A structured evaluation of business process improvement approaches. Business Process
Management Journal 17:2, 203-237. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
12. Faramak Zandi, Madjid Tavana. 2011. A fuzzy multi‐objective balanced scorecard approach for selecting an
optimal electronic business process management best practice (e‐BPMBP). Business Process Management
Journal 17:1, 147-178. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
13. Michael Markos Glykas. 2011. Effort based performance measurement in business process management.
Knowledge and Process Management 18:10.1002/kpm.v18.1, 10-33. [CrossRef]
14. Paul Childerhouse, Andrew Thomas, Gareth Phillips, Denis R. Towill. 2010. Auditing improvements in
a product delivery process (AIPDP). Business Process Management Journal 16:4, 598-618. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
15. Flávia Maria Santoro, Marcos R.S. Borges, José A. Pino. 2010. Acquiring knowledge on business processes
from stakeholders’ stories. Advanced Engineering Informatics 24, 138-148. [CrossRef]
16. M. Aghdasi, A. Albadvi, B. Ostadi. 2010. Desired organisational capabilities (DOCs): mapping in BPR
context. International Journal of Production Research 48, 2029-2053. [CrossRef]
17. Wen-Hsien Tsai, Ching-Chien Yang, Hsiao-Chiao KuoDevelopment of a hybrid model to improve the
efficiency of business process reengineering 739-743. [CrossRef]
 18. Payam Hanafizadeh, Morteza Moosakhani, Javad Bakhshi. 2009. Selecting the best strategic practices
for business process redesign. Business Process Management Journal 15:4, 609-627. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
19. K. Vergidis, C.J. Turner, A. Tiwari. 2008. Business process perspectives: Theoretical developments vs.
real-world practice. International Journal of Production Economics 114, 91-104. [CrossRef]
20. Flavia Maria Santoro, Marcos R.S. Borges, Jose A. PinoTell us your process: A group storytelling approach
to cooperative process modeling 29-34. [CrossRef]
21. K. Vergidis, A. Tiwari, B. Majeed. 2008. Business Process Analysis and Optimization: Beyond
Reengineering. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews)
38, 69-82. [CrossRef]
22. Mihyar Hesson. 2007. Business process reengineering in UAE public sector. Business Process Management
Journal 13:5, 707-727. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
23. Mihyar Hesson, Hayder Al‐Ameed, Muhammad Samaka. 2007. Business process reengineering in UAE
public sector: a town planning case study. Business Process Management Journal 13:3, 348-378. [Abstract]
Downloaded by Duquesne University At 17:41 31 January 2016 (PT)

[Full Text] [PDF]

24. P G Brabazon, B L MacCarthy, R W Hawkins. 2007. Simulation of passenger vehicle order fulfilment
processes. Journal of Simulation 1, 109-119. [CrossRef]
25. Peter Dalmaris, Eric Tsui, Bill Hall, Bob Smith. 2007. A framework for the improvement of knowledge‐
intensive business processes. Business Process Management Journal 13:2, 279-305. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
26. Emmanuel D. Adamides, Nikos Karacapilidis. 2006. A knowledge centred framework for collaborative
business process modelling. Business Process Management Journal 12:5, 557-575. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
27. Ziaul Huq, Thomas N. Martin. 2006. The recovery of BPR implementation through an ERP approach.
Business Process Management Journal 12:5, 576-587. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
28. Ziaul Huq, Faizul Huq, Ken Cutright. 2006. BPR through ERP: Avoiding change management pitfalls.
Journal of Change Management 6, 67-85. [CrossRef]
29. Christopher P. Holland, Duncan R. Shaw, Peter Kawalek. 2005. BP's multi-enterprise asset management
system. Information and Software Technology 47, 999-1007. [CrossRef]
30. Mohammed Arif, Dennis Kulonda, Jim Jones, Michael Proctor. 2005. Enterprise information systems:
technology first or process first?. Business Process Management Journal 11:1, 5-21. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
31. M. Glykas. 2004. Workflow and process management in printing and publishing firms. International
Journal of Information Management 24, 523-538. [CrossRef]
32. G. Xirogiannis, M. Glykas. 2004. Fuzzy Cognitive Maps in Business Analysis and Performance-Driven
Change. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 51, 334-351. [CrossRef]
33. Andrej Kovacic. 2004. Business renovation: business rules (still) the missing link. Business Process
Management Journal 10:2, 158-170. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
34. Chandrashekhar Chiplunkar, S.G Deshmukh, R Chattopadhyay. 2003. Application of principles of event
related open systems to business process reengineering. Computers & Industrial Engineering 45, 347-374.
[CrossRef]
 35. Rodney McAdam. 2003. Radical change: a conceptual model for research agendas. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal 24:4, 226-235. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
36. Guangming Cao, Steve Clarke, Brian Lehaney. 2003. Diversity management in organizational change:
towards a systemic framework. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 20, 231-242. [CrossRef]
37. J. S. Goulding, M. Alshawi. 2002. Generic and specific IT training: a process protocol model for
construction. Construction Management and Economics 20, 493-505. [CrossRef]
38. Guangming Cao, Steve Clarke, Brian Lehaney. 2001. A critique of BPR from a holistic perspective. Business
Process Management Journal 7:4, 332-339. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
39. Charles B. Keating, Abel A. Fernandez, Derya A. Jacobs, Paul Kauffmann. 2001. A methodology for
analysis of complex sociotechnical processes. Business Process Management Journal 7:1, 33-50. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
40. Maria Vakola, Yacine Rezgui. 2000. Critique of existing business process re‐engineering methodologies.
Business Process Management Journal 6:3, 238-250. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by Duquesne University At 17:41 31 January 2016 (PT)

41. Kostas VergidisRediscovering Business Processes: 97-122. [CrossRef]

42. K.Y. Paul Puah, K.H. Nelson TangBusiness process management, a consolidation of BPR and TQM
110-115. [CrossRef]
43. A. Groznik, A. KovacicBusiness renovation: from business process modelling to information system
modelling 405-409. [CrossRef]