The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1463-7154.htm

Towards successful strategies to Strategies to

overcome BPR
overcome BPR implementation issues

issues: case of Sri Lanka

M.F.F. Fasna and Sachie Gunatilake
Department of Building Economics, University of Moratuwa, Moratuwa, Sri Lanka
Received 1 March 2019
Revised 28 September 2019
Abstract 29 January 2020
Accepted 1 February 2020
Purpose – Currently, most of the organisations that undertake business process reengineering (BPR) projects
with the intention of enhancing their business performance are encountering several issues throughout their
endeavours. As these BPR implementation issues are perceived as one of the key contributory factors leading
to BPR project failures, it is crucial to adopt timely strategies to overcome these issues. Hence, this study is
focused on identifying the strategies to be adopted to overcome BPR implementation issues.
Design/methodology/approach – Four case studies were conducted in organisations that have successfully
implemented BPR projects within last five years. In total, 14 semi-structured interviews were conducted among
the different stakeholders who got involved in the selected BPR projects for identifying the issues faced and the
strategies that they have adopted during their project implementation.
Findings – Study derived twenty-seven issues faced by the Sri Lankan organisations during different phases
of BPR projects, and forty-five unique strategies to deal with these derived BPR implementation issues.
Originality/value – This study contributes to the field by exploring the issues in implementing BPR projects
that should be given enough consideration to ensure the success of BPR projects in the Sri Lankan context
along with the strategies to overcome the issues encountered throughout them. It is expected that the findings
of this study would be useful in ensuring the success of future BPR projects.
Keywords Business process reengineering (BPR), Case studies, Implementation issues, Strategies, Project
phases
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Rapidly changing business environments and high consumer expectations had led to the
introduction and evolvement of business process reengineering (BPR) projects in
organisations in recent decades (Darmani and Hanafizadeh, 2013). BPR is often seen as a
means to enhance the performance of the organisations through making substantial changes
to the processes (Guimaraes and Paranjape, 2013; MacBryde et al., 2012). According to
Ranganathan and Dhaliwal (2001), BPR has assisted firms to control costs and achieve
breakthrough performances in different parameters such as delivery times, customer service
and quality. Besides, organisations can gain various benefits through reengineering the
business processes including quality and productivity enhancement, production cycle time
reduction, higher profits, improved customer satisfaction and sales and marketing
improvements (Tennant and Wu, 2005).
Despite the wide range of adoption of BPR projects by organisations in recent years
(Darmani and Hanafizadeh, 2013; Grant, 2016), many reengineering projects have resulted in
failure (Abdolvand et al., 2008; Al-Mashari et al., 2001; Darmani and Hanafizadeh, 2013;
Srivastava and Sushil, 2017). According to Dennis et al. (2003) and Habib (2013), the failure
rate of BPR projects is around 70%. This high failure rate has been mainly attributed to the
different issues faced by organisations during the implementation of BPR projects (Kumar
and Harms, 2004; Leu and Huang, 2011; Tennant and Wu, 2005). Accordingly, identifying
timely strategies to overcome such BPR implementation issues is crucial to create an Business Process Management
Journal
environment in which reengineering will succeed (Gospodarevskaya and Churilov, 2011; © Emerald Publishing Limited
1463-7154
Kumar and Harms, 2004; Leu and Huang, 2011). Yet, so far, no specific research has focused DOI 10.1108/BPMJ-03-2019-0087
BPMJ on investigating the strategies to deal with BPR implementation issues. Hence, this research
was focused on identifying the strategies to be adopted to overcome BPR implementation
issues.

2. Introduction to BPR
Similar to other matured disciplines, definitions of BPR domain also tend to vary, and there
are substantial differences of views regarding what precisely constitutes BPR (Ahmed and
Simintiras, 1996). Since the term “BPR” is not self-explanatory (Ovenden, 1994), to obtain a
better understanding of this concept, it is imperative to first consider separately the three key
constructs of the concept: “process”, “business process” and “reengineering”. These terms
have been defined by various authors as follows:
(1) Process: Process is a set of logically interrelated activities in which inputs are used to
produce certain outcome with the aim of attaining a specified outcome (Davenport
and short, 1990; Sharp, 2002; Temponi, 2006; Wu, 2003).
(2) Business process: Business process is a set of sequential and logically related
activities that produce an outcome by using one or more inputs which ultimately
create value to a customer (Ahmed and Simintiras, 1996; Hammer and Champy, 1993;
Jarrar et al., 2000).
(3) Reengineering: Reengineering is the basic reassessment of the organisational
purposes and processes with no limits, and puts in place the tasks which may
radically change the organisation and operations (Ovenden, 1994).
It appears that among the available definitions for BPR, the definition provided by Hammer
and Champy (1993), best encompasses the ideas of the aforementioned key constructs of BPR.
They have defined BPR as “fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of business
processes to achieve dramatic improvements in critical contemporary measures of
performance, such as cost, quality, service, and speed” (p.32). Hence, it is clear that BPR is
a tool that can be adopted by organisations to critically analyse and radically redesign their
existing business processes with the intention of drastically enhancing their business process
performance (Guimaraes and Paranjape, 2013; Teng et al., 1994).
As BPR creates essential changes in all aspects of people, processes and technologies (Al-
Mashari and Zairi, 2000a), in many instances, it has resulted in causing many issues
throughout the BPR implementation process. These issues in implementation of BPR projects
have the potential to challenge the success of the reengineering projects (Champy, 1995;
Srivastava and Sushil, 2017). Hence, organisations that undertake BPR projects must pay
sufficient attention towards these issues throughout the project and should take timely
strategies to tackle such issues. The following section presents the key literature findings
with respect to BPR implementation issues and strategies to overcome the same.

3. Overcoming issues in BPR implementation

There are many issues associated with BPR implementation (Al-Mashari and Zairi, 2000b;
Kumar and Harms, 2004; Leu and Huang, 2011; Martin and Cheung, 2000; Tennant and Wu,
2005; Vakola et al., 2000). Most of the organisations that have adopted BPR have faced these
BPR implementation issues, which have ultimately triggered them to give up their initial
efforts, with little or no positive outcomes (Tennant and Wu, 2005).
So far, only a few authors have focused on identifying the issues associated with BPR
implementation (for e.g. refer Grover et al., 1995; Van der Vyver and Rajapakse, 2012; and
Zhao, 2004). Among these studies, only Grover et al. (1995), who had conducted his study
more than two decades ago, have proposed a comprehensive list of sixty-four (64) BPR
implementation issues, whereas the rest had just highlighted a few BPR implementation
issues. This highlights the need of identifying the contemporary BPR implementation issues Strategies to
faced by the organisations in the current context. overcome BPR
Besides, these previous studies have failed to identify the BPR implementation issues
faced by organisations specific to different phases of the BPR implementation process. In
issues
general, BPR implementation process comprises five key step: preparing for reengineering,
mapping and analysing the AS IS process (i.e. current process), design the TO BE process,
implement the reengineered process and improving continuously (Hammer and Champy,
1993; Muthu et al., 2006). On the other hand, Radhakrishnan and Balasubramanian (2008)
have classified BPR methodologies into three main phases: pre-BPR implementation, BPR
implementation and post-BPR implementation phases. By organising the aforementioned
key steps of the BPR implementation process into these three phases identified by
Radhakrishnan and Balasubramanian (2008), Fasna and Gunatilake (2019) had come up with
a systematic BPR implementation process. This study makes use of this systematic BPR
implementation process to identify and present the BPR implementation issues that might be
encountered during each of these identified phases.
Despite the efforts made by authors to identify the BPR implementation issues, there is
lack of literature to support strategies to deal with the identified issues. This highlights the
need to investigate the strategies to be undertaken to overcome BPR implementation issues.

4. Research methodology
The research adopted a qualitative approach. Case study strategy was used, as it facilitates
in-depth examination in a particular context (Yin, 2011). Multiple case study method was
selected as the most appropriate research method for the study as it can allow theory to be
better grounded in more varied evidence, while facilitating cross-case comparison (Remenyi
et al., 1998). In total, four (4) reengineering projects implemented within the last five years
were selected as cases.
Reengineering efforts can either be executed entirely by an in-house team or by an in-
house team with the aid and guidance of BPR consultants (Akhavan et al., 2006; Crowe et al.,
2002). The selected cases represent both these types of BPR projects led by in-house BPR
teams (i.e. Cases A, B and C) and BPR consultants (i.e. Case D). According to Redlein (2005),
BPR can be used for core or non-core processes, within every industry, ranging from
production processes to office automation. Hence, in case selection, concern was given
towards selecting cases to represent both core and non-core process-related reengineering
efforts. It is believed that the selection of cases based on these aspects would help to ascertain
a holistic list of BPR issues that might be encountered by organisations during their
reengineering efforts.
In total, fourteen (14) face-to-face semi-structured interviews were conducted within the
case studies to identify strategies to overcome different BPR implementation issues. As the
opinion of the respondents could be subjective in nature, face-to-face semi-structured
interviews were conducted with three to four selected respondents within each case, mainly
with the intent of ensuring the validity, reliability and appropriateness of the collected data.
The selected respondents represented different stakeholders who were involved in the
selected BPR projects. Table 1 provides a brief description of the selected cases and
respondents.
Qualitative data collected through semi-structured interviews were analysed through
code-based content analysis using QSR.NVivo (2011) computer software.

5. Case study analysis

Twenty-seven (27) issues faced by the selected cases in different project phases were
identified through case study analysis. Table 2 presents these identified BPR implementation
 BPMJ

Table 1.

and respondents
Profile of selected cases
Reengineered
Case Introduction process Selected reengineering process Respondents

A (1) Country’s leading apparel solutions company Core process One of the production lines was reengineered by Manager – Projects
(2) Has 42 manufacturing locations in Sri Lanka, India and introducing some automatic machines to reduce the and automation
Bangladesh process delays Technician –
(3) Very much familiar with reengineering projects Electrical
(4) Has dedicated in-house teams that are responsible for Technician –
identifying the inefficiencies in the existing processes Mechanical
and thereby to raise the need for reengineering
B (1) One of the pioneers in the garment industry and Core process A production process was reengineered by isolating Divisional head –
considered as a market leader in the apparel industry certain components from the process along with Maintenance
(2) Has 38 production facilities across Sri Lanka, introducing automated machines to attain greater Executive –
Bangladesh, Vietnam and Ethiopia improvements Operational system
(3) Does not have excellent knowledge or experience in Manager –
reengineering, but has an excellent in-house team with Operations
knowledge and expertise in diverse areas Production
executive
C (1) Country’s leading telecommunication services provider Core and non- All the processes relating to a particular product Deputy general
(i.e. leading broadband and backbone infrastructure core process were reengineered via incremental steps to achieve manager – BPR
service provider) radical improvements Engineer – BPR
(2) Has excellent knowledge and experience in BPR Engineer – BPR
(3) There is an internal division called “BPR division” Engineer and
which is responsible for reengineering the processes product manager
within the organisation
(4) Had established a system to centrally measure all the
processes in terms of process performance and
customer satisfaction, and thereby to identify the needs
for reengineering
D (1) An organisation uniquely founded on the concept of Core and non- All the processes in the factory were reengineered Managing director
design and construction core process completely to attain radical and dramatic and Senior
(2) Offers a wide range of services to the industry, improvements consultant
including designing and manufacturing of furniture, Assistant
space planning, interior design, etc. consultant
(3) Obtained the assistance of BPR consultants for the Financial controller
reengineering project as their in-house staff did not
have adequate knowledge or prior experience in
reengineering
 Number of respondents
Pre-BPR implementation phase BPR implementation phase Post-BPR implementation phase
No Issues Case A Case B Case C Case D Total Case A Case B Case C Case D Total Case A Case B Case C Case D Total

1 Lack of top management commitment and 4/4 3/3 7/14 1/4 2/14 1/3 3/4 4/14
support
2 Ambiguity in job expectations for BPR 2/3 2/4 4/14 0/14 0/14
project stakeholders
3 Lack of appropriate BPR methodology 4/4 4/14 0/14 0/14
4 Lack of experience in BPR 3/4 3/14 0/14 0/14
5 Difficult to forecast HR, financial and other 2/3 1/3 3/14 0/14 0/14
resource requirements
6 Uncertainty about BPR project’s time 1/3 2/4 3/14 4/4 3/3 7/14 0/14
frame
7 Failure to commit required resources for 3/4 3/14 3/3 3/14 0/14
BPR effort
8 Difficulty in financially justifying benefits 2/3 2/14 0/14 0/14
of BPR
9 Project participants’ conflict between team 3/4 3/14 1/3 4/4 4/4 1/3 10/14 0/14
responsibilities and functional
responsibilities
10 Top management’s short-term view and 2/3 2/14 0/14 0/14
quick-fix mentality
11 Difficulties in obtaining the process 2/4 2/14 0/14 0/14
validation
12 Difficulty in finding BPR team members 2/3 2/14 0/14 0/14
who have required skills and knowledge
13 Lack of senior management leadership for 1/4 1/14 0/14 0/14
reengineering effort
14 Poor communication 1/4 1/14 2/3 2/4 4/14 3/3 3/14
15 Failure to include process owners 1/4 1/14 0/14 0/14
throughout the reengineering effort
16 Inadequacy of knowledge in certain areas 1/4 1/14 0/14 0/14
17 Resistance to change 0/14 3/3 4/4 2/4 3/3 12/14 0/14
18 Failure to effectively monitor the progress 0/14 1/3 1/14 1/3 1/14
of the project according to the schedule
19 Inadequate training for personnel affected 0/14 2/4 4/4 6/14 0/14
by the redesigned process

(continued )
issues
overcome BPR
Strategies to

issues specific to each

BPR implementation

of the identified BPR

implementation phases
Table 2.
 BPMJ

Table 2.
Number of respondents
Pre-BPR implementation phase BPR implementation phase Post-BPR implementation phase
No Issues Case A Case B Case C Case D Total Case A Case B Case C Case D Total Case A Case B Case C Case D Total

20 Lack of time to develop new skills for the 0/14 4/4 4/14 2/4 2/14
redesigned process
21 Failure to build support from line managers 0/14 2/3 2/14 0/14
due to them being unreceptive to
innovation
22 Lack of appropriate planning 0/14 1/3 1/14 4/4 4/14
23 Legal issues 0/14 1/4 1/14 0/14
24 Difficulty in gaining control of 0/14 1/3 1/14 0/14
reengineering efforts
25 Difficulty in measuring the reengineering 0/14 1/3 1/14 3/3 4/4 4/4 11/14
project performance
26 Difficulties in obtaining feedback from the 0/14 0/14 2/4 2/14
end users
27 Lack of employee involvement 0/14 0/14 2/4 2/14
issues classified under the 3 phases of BPR implementation process (i.e. pre-BPR
implementation, BPR implementation and post-BPR implementation phases) identified by
Radhakrishnan and Balasubramanian (2008).
Forty-five (45) unique strategies to overcome each of these identified issues were also
elicited through case study analysis (see Figure 1). The key findings related to the above are
further discussed below.
BPR Project Phases Implementation Issues
Lack of top management
commitment and support
Ambiguity in job expectations for
BPR project stakeholders
Lack of appropriate BPR
methodology
Lack of experience in BPR
Difficult to forecast HR, financial
and other resource requirements
Pre-BPR
implementation phase
Uncertainty about BPR project’ s time
frame
Failure to commit required resources
for BPR effort
Difficulty in financially justifying the
benefits of BPR
Project participants’ conflicts
between team responsibilities and
functional responsibilities
Top management's short term view
and quick fix mentality
Difficulties in obtaining the process
validation
Difficulty in finding BPR team
members who have required skills
and knowledge
Lack of senior management
leadership for reengineering effort
BPR implementation
phase Poor communication
Failure to include process owners
throughout the reengineering effort
Inadequacy of knowledge in certain
areas
Resistance to change
Failure to effectively monitor the
progress of the project according to
the schedule
Inadequate training for personnel
affected by the redesigned process
Lack of time to develop new skills
for the redesigned process
Failure to build support from line
managers due to their unreceptive to
innovation
Lack of appropriate planning
Post-BPR Legal issues
implementation phase
Difficulty in gaining control of
reengineering efforts
Difficulty in measuring the
reengineering project performance
Difficulties in obtaining feedbacks
from the end users
Lack of employee involvement in the
redesigned process
Strategies to
overcome BPR
issues
Strategies
▪ Steering committee should get involved and assist in getting the commitment of the top management
▪ Make the top management aware of the benefits of reengineering efforts via workshop, review
meetings, or meetings
▪ Communicate the vitality and necessity of continuously improving the new process via meetings or
progress review meetings
▪ Clear definition of role of stakeholders in review meetings
▪ Steering committee decides upon a methodology
▪ Provide training for the project stakeholders by hiring specialists in the field or by means of overseas
training
▪ Maintain proper supplier relationships
▪ Reengineering czar should be made responsible for predicting resources requirements
▪ Steering committee should be made responsible for providing sufficient resources on time
▪ Develop a time action plan
▪ Make the participants aware of the impacts of exceeding the project timeline
▪ Develop a project timeline and request the participants to strictly adhere to it
▪ Develop business requirement specification form and make the employees to abide to it
▪ With the assistance of HR manager, reengineering czar should release the required staff for
reengineering effort
▪ Develop an internal resource plan
▪ Make the financial team aware of the benefits of the particular BPR project including the project
payback period
▪ Make the participants' aware that successful completion of this project is used to assess their
performance
▪ With the assistance of HR manager, provide freedom for the participants to give priority for the
reengineering effort
▪ With the assistance of HR manager or steering committee, release the staff for reengineering effort
▪ Make the top management aware of the necessity of undertaking BPR project and the benefits that
could be gained through such projects
▪ Establish a setup to get the process validated
▪ Provide required knowledge for the team members via knowledge sharing programmes and
workshops
▪ Clearly define the methodology for the project
▪ Develop a time action plan and facilitated the members to understand their roles in a simplified
manner
▪ Make the top management aware of benefits of BPR and necessity to commit to BPR project
▪ Team captain should take the responsibility to coordinate the team members
▪ Establish a proper communication channel i.e. conduct review meetings or meetings periodically
▪ Make the process owners aware that the successful completion of this project is used to assess their
performance
▪ Adopt knowledge management practices
▪ Communicate the reasons for change and its benefits via meetings
▪ Provide training for the workers
▪ Recruit new employees for the re-designed process
▪ Terminate some key resisters
▪ Adopt a tactful piecemeal approach
▪ Employee involvement during project implementation
▪ Assign a person (i.e. reengineering czar) to monitor the project progress periodically
▪ Provide training for workers with the assistance of machine suppliers
▪ Re-develop the user guideline
▪ Recruit new employees for the redesigned process via internal employment referrals , or career fairs
▪ Provide training for the existing workers
▪ Clearly define the pre-qualifications expected from the various types of staff and make the
recruitments accordingly
▪ Communicate the benefits and reasons to change to members of the organisation
▪ Provide sufficient training for the operators
▪ Make modifications to the process to minimize the impacts of poor planning
▪ Steering committee should foresee future employee transfers
▪ Observe the legal implications time to time and updated the policies
▪ Implement the process step by step
▪ Include as a minute in operational review meetings
▪ Monitor the operation and performance of the reengineered process
▪ Assign process owner to measure the new process periodically
▪ Obtain feedbacks from the selected persons who are really affected by this new process periodically
Figure 1.
▪ Establish a system to obtain feedbacks BPR implementation
▪ Establish an appropriate employee compensation incentive in the new process issues and strategies to
▪ Put in place a new reward system
▪ Make adjustments to the new reward system periodically overcome such issues
BPMJ “Lack of top management commitment and support” was identified as an issue faced by all
the 4 cases in different phases of the project, which can significantly affect the success of BPR
projects. Cases C and D had encountered commitment issues in pre-BPR implementation
phase. This had caused difficulties in obtaining top management approvals in early project
stages. To overcome commitment issues faced in pre-BPR implementation phase, in Case C,
steering committee got involved and assisted in obtaining commitment and support of the top
management throughout the project. Conversely, Case D had conducted a workshop to make
the top management aware of the benefits that can be gained through this project. Due to Case
B’s lack of prior experience with reengineering, they had faced commitment issues in BPR
implementation and post-BPR implementation phases. Similar to Case B, Case A had also
faced the same issue in post-BPR implementation phase. This had led both Cases A and B to
make the top management aware of the vitality and necessity of continuously improving the
reengineered process via periodic review meetings. Overall, it is clear that the strategies
adopted by each case differ from one another based upon the mode used for communicating
the changes to the top management.
With the intention of overcoming the “ambiguity in job expectations for BPR project
stakeholders” in pre-BPR implementation phase, both Cases A and B had taken efforts to
clearly define the role of each stakeholders under the particular project.
“Lack of appropriate BPR methodology” was an issue faced only by Case B in pre-BPR
implementation phase, which had significant influence in successfully proceeding with the
project. Hence, the need for steering committee members to make discussions and agree upon
a methodology to proceed with the project was highlighted.
Among the selected cases, Case B had faced difficulties in properly executing the tasks in
pre-BPR implementation phase (i.e. in evaluating the reengineering opportunities, identifying
the processes with potential for reengineering, selecting most suitable process for redesign,
determining the methodology for redesign and redesigning the selected process). This was
mainly due to their senior-level managers’ “lack of experience in reengineering business
processes”. This had led them to conduct training programmes by hiring a specialist to
provide the internal staff with adequate knowledge on the ways of executing the BPR
projects and tactics to be followed while executing the specific tasks in a reengineering
project. Further, the top management had also taken efforts to provide overseas training for
the respective officials of the facility.
Cases A and D had faced difficulties in “forecasting Human Resource (HR), financial and
other resource requirements” in pre-BPR implementation phase. This had resulted in
difficulties in sourcing and selecting suitable materials in a timely manner and at a reasonable
cost. To better manage such issues and thereby to reduce its impact on project success, Case
A had maintained a good supplier relationship and assigned responsibility to specific
management-level personnel to ensure the supply of sufficient resources on time. Conversely,
in Case D, the financial controller (i.e. reengineering czar) was made responsible for predicting
the resource requirements.
“Uncertainty about BPR project’s time frame” was another issue faced by all the cases
throughout their BPR efforts. Encountering this issue in pre-BPR implementation phase had led
both Cases A and B to develop an “action plan”, indicating the tasks to be performed throughout
the project, who should be responsible for such tasks, by when it should be done and so forth
during the remaining project phases. Cases C and D, on the other hand, had faced this issue in
BPR implementation phase. Both cases had established a project timeline and requested the
reengineering team to strictly adhere to it. Moreover, these 2 cases had also taken efforts to
minimise the impacts of this issue on the project success by educating the project stakeholders.
Due to Case C’s “failure to commit required resources for BPR effort” in pre-BPR
implementation phase, their reengineering team had developed a business requirement
specification form and requested the employees to abide by it. To overcome the same issue,
Case D had developed an internal resource plan to ensure the provision of the needed Strategies to
resources on time. In addition, in Case D, the financial controller (i.e. reengineering czar) had overcome BPR
made arrangements to release the needed employees from their respective routine works with
the assistance of manager – HR.
issues
Case A had faced difficulties in obtaining the required approvals from their financial team
due to “difficulties in financially justifying the benefits of the BPR project”. Hence, the general
manager (GM) of this particular case (i.e. project leader) had made the financial team aware of
the benefits of this project, including the project payback period, by preparing a “capital
expenditure justification form”.
“Project participants” conflict between team responsibilities and functional responsibilities’
was another issue faced by all 4 cases, especially in BPR implementation phase. Analysis
disclosed that among these cases, Case C had faced this issue from the pre-BPR implementation
phase itself, which caused certain delays within the project. To overcome this issue, all the cases
except Case D had taken efforts to release the respective staff from their functional roles with
the assistance of HR manager/steering committee. Further, Case C had adopted two vital
approaches to deal with this issue, that is, project participants were made aware that this project
will be used for assessing their performance, and participants were given freedom to give
priority for the BPR project. However, in Case D, rather than taking any tactics to reduce the
work overload of the participants, they have instructed the team to strictly adhere to the project
implementation timeline.
In Case D, which was led by BPR consultants, the top management had very “short term
views and quick fix mentality”. Owing to this, they appeared to largely favour temporary
solutions to sort out organisation’s problems (i.e. issues and inefficiencies in the existing
processes) quickly and easily. Due to their short-term views and this quick-fix mentality, the
top management of Case D was found to be reluctant to undertake a BPR project. The BPR
consultants had conducted workshops and meetings to make the top management aware of
the necessity and the long-term benefits of implementing a BPR project rather than resorting
to merely “patching up” the problems in an ad-hoc manner.
“Difficulties in obtaining process validation” was an issue Case C had encountered mainly
during the pre-BPR implementation phase in all their previous reengineering efforts. As a
result, no one in the facility was held accountable for the mistakes in the reengineered process.
Due to this past experience, during this particular project, all the members of the BPR project
team had been asked to verify that “the validation of the process design was done” by signing
document immediately after the process design. As per Case C respondents, this had
facilitated them in getting the redesigned process properly validated.
Difficulties in finding BPR team members with required skills and knowledge was another
issue faced by Case D, which was led by BPR consultants. Hence, the BPR consultants had
provided required knowledge for the selected members of the client organisation through
“knowledge sharing programmes” and “workshops”. These were used to provide knowledge
on BPR implementation procedures as well as to ensure that project team members
understood their roles during the BPR process. To further facilitate the in-house staff in
clearly understanding their roles in the project, the BPR consultants had developed an “action
plan”, clearly indicating the role of each stakeholder in the project and the date on which it
should be performed. Besides, they had also defined a methodology for the project clearly and
thereby assisted the in-house team to smoothly proceed with this project.
“Lack of senior management leadership for reengineering effort” was an issue faced by
Case B in pre-BPR implementation phase mainly due to their lack of prior experience with
reengineering. To avoid this problem in the subsequent project phases, the GM of particular
facility (i.e. reengineering czar) had made the top management aware of the benefits that
could be gained through the particular BPR project as well as the necessity to commit to the
project.
BPMJ All the cases, except Case C, had also faced communication-related issues (i.e. among
reengineering team members, between BPR team members and other organisational
members, and between process owner and other organisational members) in different project
phases (refer Table 2). Poor communication had led to uncertainties and fears among the
employees, resulting in reduced involvement of employees and difficulties in identifying the
inefficiencies in the reengineered processes. Consequently, these 3 cases had realised the need
of establishing proper communication channels and had started conducting periodic review
meetings. Moreover, in Case B, the team captain (i.e. manager-operations) had been
specifically assigned the responsibility of coordinating the team members.
Inadequacy of knowledge on standard delivery methods was an issue faced by Case C in
pre-BPR implementation phase. This had led them to adopt knowledge management
practices to stay updated on all the aspects that are crucial to successfully proceed with
reengineering projects.
“Resistance to change” was also identified as an issue faced by all the 4 cases during
project implementation. To address this, all 4 cases had attempted to communicate to their
employees the need for change and expected benefits of BPR. They have also provided the
necessary training for the employees to smoothly proceed with their work under the new
process. Besides, difficulties in changing the operators’ attitudes had led Case A to recruit
new operators for their reengineered process. According to respondents of Case B, in some
extreme instances, they had isolated and dismissed some key resisters. Since Case D had
faced employee resistance when they attempted to deploy an outside project manager (PM)
for implementation, they had undertaken some tactful piecemeal approaches (e.g.
reengineering team took the responsibility to implement the project by themselves rather
than assigning a PM). Further, the respondents from all the 4 cases had the perception that
the employee involvement during BPR implementation and post-BPR implementation phases
would be useful in overcoming resistance effectively. Furthermore, Case D led by BPR
consultants had failed to build support from line managers attached to the client, due to their
unwillingness to accept new ideas or suggestions. This had, in extreme instances, resulted in
causing resistance against the changes brought by this project. Hence, this case had
conducted awareness programmes to make the respective officials (i.e. line managers)
understand the benefits to both the employees and the organisation from this particular BPR
project. Findings disclosed that despite encountering this issue by all the 4 cases, it is still
possible to observe some differences in the mode of resistance which led each case to give
sufficient concern towards assessing the individual reasons for resistance prior to
undertaking the strategies.
“Failure to effectively monitor the progress of the project according to the schedule” was
an issue faced only by Case A in both BPR implementation and post-BPR implementation
phases. To deal with this issue, they had assigned a person to monitor the project progress. It
was interesting to note, however, that the person assigned varied from phase to phase based
upon their involvement in the reengineered process. For instance, in BPR implementation
phase, the head of maintenance technology (i.e. reengineering czar) was assigned, as he was
responsible for coordinating all the ongoing BPR activities, while in post-BPR
implementation phase, the plant engineer was made responsible for monitoring the project
progress.
“Inadequate training for personnel affected by the redesigned process” was another issue
faced by Cases B and C in BPR implementation phase. This resulted in causing fear among
the workers (e.g. Case B) as well as difficulties for the users to operate under the new process
(e.g. Case C). These adverse impacts of inadequate training highlighted the vitality of
providing proper training for the respective parties (i.e. workers/operators) under the new
process. Besides, Case C had also refined the user guidelines to facilitate users to proceed with
the new reengineered process properly.
 Despite the lack of knowledge of personnel in their redesigned processes, both Cases B and Strategies to
C had not allocated sufficient time to develop new skills for their employees. This had led Case overcome BPR
B to recruit new employees for the redesigned process as well as provide training for the
existing workers. Conversely, with the intention of avoiding the same issue in future
issues
reengineering efforts, Case C had made an attempt to clearly define the qualifications
expected from various types of staff which could be used as a basis to recruit qualified staff in
future. Further, they included a “pre-request” stating the standard training on certain areas
that should be followed by the platform users prior to joining work.
“Lack of appropriate planning” was another issue faced by Cases A and C in BPR
implementation phase and post-BPR implementation phase, respectively. Poor planning had
led Case A’s project team to make certain modifications to the reengineering process to
address quality issues and to subsequently train operators on proper operation of the new
process. Similarly, Case C also had failed to foresee the internal transfers of platform users
and ultimately had to provide training again for the new platform users. Further, to avoid the
same issue in future, their Governance Board (i.e. steering committee) was made responsible
for identifying the possible future transfers before providing necessary trainings for the
platform users.
Case D had faced difficulties in gaining and maintaining control of the particular
reengineering effort due to the large scope of the project (i.e. all the processes are
reengineered). As a result, Case D had also faced difficulties in implementing all the
reengineered processes at once during the BPR implementation phase. This had led them to
carry out the implementation of the designed TO BE processes in 3 stages.
All 3 BPR projects led by in-house teams had faced “difficulties in measuring the
reengineering project performance” in post-BPR implementation phase. These 3 cases had
addressed this issue in different ways. In Case A, the project participants had included
performance reporting as an agenda item in their weekly operational review meetings. In
Case B, a management personnel had been assigned the responsibility of ensuring that the
BPR results were achieved and, in turn, continuously improving the process by identifying
any inefficiencies in the implemented process. Case C had made an effort to measure the
performance of the new processes by means of interviewing the respective parties and
end users.
Difficulty in obtaining feedback from end users in a proper manner was an issue faced by
Case C in post-BPR implementation phase. Due to this issue, Case C could not assess the level
of success of the reengineered process, which is perceived as crucial to determine whether any
alterations are needed to the redesigned processes.
As the same incentive scheme was applied for the employees that worked under the
redesigned process, Case C had experienced reductions in the level of involvement of the
employees under the new process. This had led them to implement a new incentive and reward
systems for the employees involved in the redesigned process. Besides, with the intention of
ensuring the employee involvement throughout the redesigned process, GM had requested the
manager – HR, of the facility to make periodic adjustments to this new reward system.

6. Discussion of the findings

Grover and Jeong (1995), Malhotra (1998) and Van der Vyver and Rajapakse (2012) have identified
“lack of top management commitment” as a serious issue obstructing the success of BPR
implementations. While substantiating the findings of above studies, this study had revealed that
“lack of top management commitment and support” and “poor communication” are the key issues
experienced by the Sri Lankan organisations throughout their reengineering effort.
Tennant and Wu (2005) had emphasised the vitality of having a long-term focus rather
than short-term ones while improving the organisational performance. Issues encountered by
BPMJ the outsourced BPR project, due to their top management’s short-term view on performance
enhancement, further underpin this finding. As BPR generally requires highly skilled
employees (Drago and Geisler, 1997), successful adoption and implementation of BPR
necessitates the organisations to develop and exploit essential skills throughout the project
(Emerie-Kassahun and Molla, 2013). Obtaining the assistance of BPR consultants by Case D,
which lacked internal staff with required skills and knowledge to successfully reengineer their
processes, further reinforces the need of having people with needed skills and knowledge.
As leadership could promote the organisational commitment to the initiative and ensure
the consistent availability of resources to the project (Bin Taher et al., 2015), lack of leadership
is perceived as a key issue that could lead to reengineering project failures (Malhotra, 1998).
Similarly, the selected cases had also encountered several issues due to lack of senior
management leadership for the respective reengineering projects.
Ascertaining “resistance to change” as an issue faced by all the 4 cases further confirms
the opinion of Omidi and Khoshtinat (2016), Tennant and Wu (2005) and Zhao (2004), who
have specified resistance to change as one of the key BPR implementation difficulties faced
by the organisations. Besides, this study further discloses the possibility of confronting this
issue specifically in BPR implementation phase.
Terziovski et al. (2003) and Wells (2000) had disclosed that adopting a suitable strategic
planning for BPR projects is crucial to ensure their successful implementation. Equally,
facing several issues by the selected cases in both BPR implementation phase and post-BPR
implementation phase, owing to their lack of appropriate planning, had further clarified the
vitality of adopting proper planning.
As BPR is a top–down approach, employee/user involvement is crucial to reap the benefits
of reengineering (Khodambashi, 2013). Emphasising the same view point, lack of employee
involvement was ascertained through this study as a BPR implementation issue.
As per Zhao (2004), key issues associated with BPR implementation other than resistance
to change are substantial costs for extensive training and facilities updating, disruption to
existing business operation, inconsistent or incomplete installations and traumatic
experiences for the employees affected by downsizing. However, the findings of this study
shed light on the BPR implementation issues that might be encountered by the Sri Lankan
organisations, and thereby affirms the inapplicability of these issues to the local context (i.e.
Sri Lankan context).
Van der Vyver and Rajapakse (2012) have identified altogether six key BPR
implementation issues, wherein five appear to be in line with the findings of Grover et al.
(1995), thus reinforcing the applicability of the findings of Grover et al. (1995) to the present
context. Although “poor level of self-learning among the staff” is the only unique BPR
implementation issue identified by Van der Vyver and Rajapakse (2012) to the Sri Lankan
context, the present study, which also takes into account the same context, did not derive this
as an issue associated with BPR implementation. This might be owing to the local
organisations increasing commitment towards reengineering in the current context, and the
efforts taken by each of the organisations to internally empower its employees.
The revisiting of literature findings against the findings of this research made it clear that
among the derived BPR implementation issues, twenty-one (21) issues are consistent with the
literature findings, while the remaining six (6) issues had been ascertained purely through the
empirical findings. These newly derived BPR implementation issues are italicised in Table 2.
Besides, it had been observed that the majority (i.e. 43) of the BPR implementation issues
identified by Grover et al. (1995) were not faced by these selected case study organisations. By
virtue of these findings, the present study clearly distinguishes the BPR implementation
issues that could affect the successful execution of BPR projects in the Sri Lankan context.
Overall, it is clear that, even though literature provides a list of issues in implementing BPR
projects (for, e.g. Grover et al., 1995; Van der Vyver and Rajapakse, 2012; and Zhao, 2004), no
guidance was provided in identifying the issues that may occur in different project phases. In Strategies to
this context, this research adds value by identifying the BPR implementation issues for each overcome BPR
different phase of the BPR project. For instance, it is clear from case study analysis that among
the elicited BPR implementation issues, “lack top management commitment and support” and
issues
“poor communication” were the issues encountered by the selected cases throughout the BPR
project. The former was confronted by these cases throughout the project mainly due to top
managements’ viewpoint that their involvement in these efforts would be to provide only the
approvals for the project, while the latter was encountered due to the involvement of numerous
stakeholders from various backgrounds in the reengineering efforts. Besides, it had been
ascertained that “uncertainty about BPR project’s time frame”, “failure to commit required
resources for BPR effort” and “project participants” conflict between team responsibilities and
functional responsibilities were the BPR implementation issues encountered by the selected
cases in both pre-BPR implementation and BPR implementation phases. This was because
during these two phases, several vital activities were to be performed (refer Fasna and
Gunatilake, 2019) that required numerous resources including the involvement of certain key
stakeholders, as well as had significant influence in causing project delays. Similarly, “failure to
effectively monitor the progress of the project according to the schedule”, “lack of time to develop
new skills for the re-designed process” and “lack of appropriate planning” were the issues faced
by these cases in both BPR implementation and post-BPR implementation phases. This would
be due to the nature of the activities needed to be performed during these project phases (refer
Fasna and Gunatilake, 2019).
Besides, the analysis of this study clearly distinguished the BPR implementation issues
unique to the context of in-house team-led reengineering projects and outsourced reengineering
projects (i.e. led by BPR consultants), which had so far not been given adequate concern in the
academic literature. Findings disclosed that in pre-BPR implementation phase among the
selected cases, Case D that was led by BPR consultants had faced difficulties in finding BPR team
members with required skills and knowledge, and difficulties in coping with the top management
of the particular facility due to their short-term view and quick-fix mentality. Equally, in BPR
implementation phase, the BPR consultants had faced difficulties in obtaining the required
resources for BPR efforts, forming support from the line managers and gaining control of
reengineering efforts mainly due to the lack of coordination between the BPR consultants and
clients. The latter was specifically encountered by the selected outsourced BPR project (i.e. Case
D), as under this project all the processes of the selected facility (i.e. factory) were reengineered.
Besides, it had been ascertained that among these selected cases, BPR projects led by in-house
teams had faced difficulties in measuring the reengineering project performance, specifically in
post-BPR implementation phase, due to their lack of expertise in measuring the performance of
the reengineered process. As “resistance to change” is highlighted by all the 4 cases as an issue
encountered in BPR implementation phase, it can be deduced that any organisation that
undertakes BPR projects may encounter resistance from various parties during the project
implementation, if no other strategies were taken to properly deal with the project participants.
By far, there is lack of studies on strategies to deal with BPR implementation issues.
Hence, it had been decided to affirm the suitability of these elicited strategies by scrutinising
the strategies suggested to deal with similar issues in other contexts. As per Smith (2011),
communicating the vision of a project to the people in the organisation would enable them to
act on the vision. Similarly, with the intention of gaining the commitment of top management
to the project, both Cases A and B had made the top management aware of the vitality and
necessity of continuously improving the reengineered process.
Lack of understanding and the inability to perform process improvement systematically were
identified as key reasons for not attaining the desired results from BPR projects (Chan and Choi,
1997). This stimulates the vitality of executing BPR projects through a proper BPR methodology,
as has been highlighted by Khodambashi (2013) and as adopted by the selected cases.
BPMJ As per Ovenden (1994), to ensure the success of the reengineering projects, it is crucial to
involve people who have very good experience in the field of business practices and systems,
and are capable of identifying the features of the business. Similarly, lack of prior experience
with reengineering had led Case B to provide training for the stakeholders.
In order to properly deal with the uncertainty about BPR project’s time frame, Cases A and
B had developed a time action plan. This appears to be in line with the findings of Davies
(2011) and Yaseen and Okour (2012), who had insisted the vitality of establishing a time frame
for a project to ensure the timely completion of all the activities in the project.
Allocation of adequate resources, including HR, is crucial to ensure the successful
implementation of BPR project (Davies, 2011). Equally, Guimaraes and Paranjape (2013) had
insisted on the necessity of developing a detailed plan covering specific requirements such as
personnel, tools, software, procedures and maintenance. Thus, it could be perceived that the
strategies adopted by Case D to ensure the timely provision of the needed resources (i.e.
developing an internal resource plan and releasing the needed employees from their
respective routine works) are crucial for project success.
The enhancement of organisational performance on a continuous basis depends not only
on reengineering their business processes per se but also on creating essential skills needed to
institutionalise and sustain the redesigned business processes (Ozcelik, 2010). Mabin et al.
(2001) disclosed the importance of providing training to make people well-equipped with all
sorts of knowledge and skills. Relying upon Mabin et al. (2001)’s finding, it could be deduced
that providing training and required knowledge for the internal staff is crucial within the
context of BPR projects.
Case study analysis revealed that the communication gap among the parties of the project
could lead to lack of involvement of employees. Equally, Homa (1995) also had the similar
view, which led the author to suggest providing regular and authentic project information to
staff as the suitable strategy that could be adopted to gain sufficient cooperation. In line with
this, the selected cases also had established proper communication channel to make frequent
communication among the parties and thus to share the project information.
Darmani and Hanafizadeh (2013) had disclosed that though BPR brings in complicated
changes to the facility, it does not help with the way the aligned changes are managed. This
emphasises the vitality of taking proper strategies to deal with the changes brought by the
reengineering projects. As per Xiang et al. (2014), to deal with any organisational change, it is
essential to communicate the reasons for change as well as provide adequate training for
relevant employees. Adoption of similar strategies by all the 4 cases to handle the resistance
to change had further reinstated the suitability of these strategies to deal with the resistance
against reengineering efforts.
Though eliminating fear of termination and applying appropriate deterrence mechanisms
against the resisters were identified as crucial strategies to be taken to properly deal with
resistance to change (Bin Taher et al., 2015), Case B had attempted to terminate some key
resisters while proceeding with the BPR project, which could further worsen the situation, as
mentioned by Bin Taher et al. (2015).
As per Fernandez and Rainey (2006), providing guarantees against personal losses could
assist the organisations in properly dealing with resistance. However, none of these selected
cases had adopted such a strategy when coping with resistance to change within the context of
BPR projects, as they had perceived that the respective project will not result in any personal
losses. Besides, the perception of case study respondents with regard to employee involvement
appears to be consistent with the view of Omidi and Khoshtinat (2016) who had disclosed that
engaging employees in redesign processes and its associated decision-making is found to be
crucial in terms of overcoming resistance to change and creating commitment and motivation.
Bernonville et al. (2010) had insisted the vitality of providing user training by divulging
that it would facilitate in ensuring the proper operation of redesigned process as well as its
sustenance. Equally, both Cases B and C had provided training for the parties who are Strategies to
affected by the redesigned process. overcome BPR
Since in the in-house team-led BPR projects the redesigning is mostly done by the internal
staff with diverse background and areas of expertise, providing necessary training for them
issues
is found to be crucial (Drago and Geisler, 1997). Similarly, Case B, which did not have prior
experience with reengineering, had also provided required training to the staff by conducting
some training sessions.
Drago and Geisler (1997) had insisted the vitality of measuring the performance of the
redesigned processes by disclosing the influence the redesigned processes have on the
performance of other processes. By realising this, the in-house-led BPR projects had also
taken certain strategies to properly measure the reengineering project performance (refer
Figure 1). Though establishing key performance indicators to measure the success of the
proposed change is identified as a good practice to be adopted (Hesson, 2007; Layton, 2012),
this was not being ascertained from case study analysis as a strategy that would be of use in
measuring the performance of BPR projects.
Obtaining the feedback from the involved stakeholders (Xiang et al., 2014) and considering
their feedback (Khodambashi, 2013) were ascertained as the best practices to be adopted.
Ascertaining “establishing a system to obtain feedbacks” as strategy through case study
appears to be further reinstating this opinion.
Ahmad et al. (2007), Tennant and Wu (2005) and Yaseen and Okour (2012) had suggested
that reward and deterrence mechanism could assist in gaining employees involvement and
commitment. Equally, through case study analysis, establishing a new reward system and
employee compensation incentive was ascertained as the strategy adopted to gain sufficient
employee involvement in the new process.
In general, managerial involvement and communication were found to be crucial in
assessing employee skills, assigning right tasks to the employees and directing employees
towards accomplishing the set goals (Bin Taher et al., 2015). Case study analysis made it clear
that this is specifically true in the context of BPR projects.
When considering the strategies to overcome each of the identified BPR implementation
issues, it is clear that making the top management aware of the benefits of reengineering
would be useful in overcoming “lack of top management commitment and support”, “top
management’s short term view and quick fix mentality” and “lack of senior management
leadership for reengineering effort”. Similarly, it was ascertained that providing training for
the internal staff would facilitate in properly dealing with “lack of experience in BPR”,
“resistance to change”, “inadequate training for personnel affected by the redesigned
process”, “lack of time to develop new skills for the redesigned process” and “lack of
appropriate planning”. Equally, by developing a time action plan, issues like “uncertainty
about BPR project’s time frame” and “difficulty in finding BPR team members who have
required skills and knowledge” could be avoided. Further, releasing the required staff for
reengineering effort was found to be useful in overcoming issues like “failure to commit
required resources for BPR effort” and “project participants” conflict between team
responsibilities and functional responsibilities.
It was also ascertained that by making the project participants aware that the successful
completion of this project is used to assess their performance, both “project participants”
conflict between team responsibilities and functional responsibilities and “failure to include
process owners throughout the reengineering effort” could be overcome. Findings further
disclosed that communicating the reasons for change and its benefits is crucial to overcoming
“resistance to change” and “failure to build support from line managers due to their
unreceptive to innovation”. Further, the findings made it clear that recruiting new employees
for the redesigned process would assist in overcoming issues like “resistance to change” and
“lack of time to develop new skills for the redesigned process”.
BPMJ As a whole, through the analysis of the strategies taken by these selected cases, it had been
elicited that each organisation had taken strategies to deal with the issues that they had faced
based upon the specific nature of the issues being faced, their past experiences with BPR projects,
perspectives of the key project participants and management styles. Moreover, it could be realised
from the results that there are no hard and fast rules on the strategies that should be adopted for
each issue, and it is up to the particular organisation to decide upon the strategies which might
suit them best. However, taking timely strategies is most crucial to ensure the project success.

7. Conclusions
In the current context, the organisations found themselves confronted by several issues while
reengineering their business processes which had ultimately challenged the project success. By
realising the vitality of taking timely strategies to deal with BPR implementation issues, this study
aimed at investigating the strategies that can be adopted to overcome BPR implementation issues.
Using four (4) case studies, the study derived forty-five (45) distinctive strategies to deal with
twenty-seven (27) BPR implementation issues (refer Figure 1). By adopting an approach
different from those of the previous studies, this study had identified BPR implementation issues
faced by the organisations in different project phases. Among these elicited BPR implementation
issues, “lack top management commitment and support” and “poor communication” are the
issues that had been encountered by the selected cases in all three phases of the project.
In addition, the study disclosed the possibility of facing issues like “difficulties in finding
BPR team members with required skills and knowledge”, “top management’s short-term view
and quick fix mentality”, “failure to commit required resources for BPR efforts”, “failure to
build support from the line managers” and “difficulties in gaining control of reengineering
efforts” by the organisations who tend to reengineer their processes with the assistance of
BPR consultants. Further, they are likely to encounter the “difficulties in measuring the
reengineering project performance” in in-house-led BPR projects, which was also elicited
through case study analysis. In addition, the findings of this study highlighted the prospect of
encountering “resistance to change” in any reengineering project despite the party who
handles the project (i.e. in-house team or BPR consultants).
The case study analysis underpins seven key strategies that would be of use in
overcoming more than one BPR implementation issues. On the basis of the analysis, “making
the top management aware of the benefits of reengineering”, “providing training for the
internal staff”, “developing a time action plan”, “releasing the required staff for reengineering
effort”, “making the project participants aware that the successful completion of this project
is used to assess their performance”, “communicating the reasons for change and its benefits”
and “recruiting new employees” are the key strategies that should be adopted while dealing
with BPR implementation issues.
Besides, the findings made it clear that among the identified forty-five (45) strategies to
overcome each of the BPR implementation issues, the most suitable strategy should be
selected, depending on the specific nature of the issues being faced. Additionally, it was
elicited that the project participants’ perceptions, management styles and past experiences
with BPR projects also have significant influence in determining the most suitable strategy
for each BPR implementation issue. It is believed that these suggested strategies would be
useful for the Sri Lankan organisations in taking timely strategies to properly deal with the
BPR implementation issues that might be encountered during various project phases in their
future reengineering endeavours.
Even though rigorous research procedures have been used in this study, all the selected
cases within this study represent the organisations in Sri Lanka, and thus limit the
applicability of the research findings to Sri Lankan context. However, it could be argued that
the findings may be applicable to other similar contexts.
References Strategies to
Abdolvand, N., Albadvi, A. and Ferdowsi, Z. (2008), “Assessing readiness for business process overcome BPR
reengineering”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 497-511.
issues
Ahmad, H., Francis, A. and Zairi, M. (2007), “Business process reengineering: critical success factors in
higher education”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 451-469.
Ahmed, P.K. and Simintiras, A.C. (1996), “Conceptualizing business process re-engineering”, Business
Process Management Journal, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 73-92.
Akhavan, P., Jafari, M. and Ali-Ahmadi, A.R. (2006), “Exploring the interdependency between
reengineering and information technology by developing a conceptual model”, Business Process
Management Journal, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 517-534.
Al-Mashari, M. and Zairi, M. (2000a), “Revisiting BPR: a holistic review of practice and development”,
Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 10-42.
Al-Mashari, M. and Zairi, M. (2000b), “Supply-chain re-engineering using enterprise resource planning
(ERP) systems: an analysis of a SAP R/3 implementation case”, International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 30 Nos 3/4, pp. 296-313.
Al-Mashari, M., Irani, Z. and Zairi, M. (2001), “Business process reengineering: a survey of
international experience”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 437-455.
Bernonville, S., Kolski, C., Leroy, N. and Beuscart-Zephir, M.C. (2010), “Integrating the SE and HCI
models in the human factors engineering cycle for re-engineering Computerized Physician
Order Entry systems for medications: basic principles illustrated by a case study”, International
Journal of Medical Informatics, Vol. 79 No. 4, pp. e35-e42.
Bin Taher, N.A., Krotov, V. and Silva, L. (2015), “A framework for leading change in the UAE public
sector”, International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 348-363.
Champy, J. (1995), Reengineering Management: The Mandate for New Leadership, Harper Business,
New York, NY.
Chan, S.L. and Choi, C.F. (1997), “A conceptual and analytical framework for business process
reengineering”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 50 Nos 2-3, pp. 211-223.
Crowe, T.J., Fong, P.M., Bauman, T.A. and Zayas-Castro, J.L. (1996), “Quantitative risk level estimation
of business process reengineering efforts”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 8 No. 5,
pp. 490-511.
Darmani, A. and Hanafizadeh, P. (2013), “Business process portfolio selection in re-engineering
projects”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 892-916.
Davenport, T.H. and Short, J.E. (1990), “The new industrial engineering: information technology and
business process redesign”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 31 No. 4, p. 11.
Davies, C. (2011), “The role of sponser”, available at: www.pmi.org/business-solutions/_/media/PDF/
Business-Solutions/ExecutiveEngagement_FINAL.ashx.
Dennis, A.R., Carte, T.A. and Kelly, G.G. (2003), “Breaking the rules: success and failure in groupware-
supported business process reengineering”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 31-47.
Drago, W. and Geisler, E. (1997), “Business process re-engineering: lessons from the past”, Industrial
Management and Data Systems, Vol. 97 No. 8, pp. 297-303.
Emerie-Kassahun, A. and Molla, A. (2013), “BPR complementary competence: definition, model and
measurement”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 575-596.
Fasna, M.F.F. and Gunatilake, S. (2019), “A process for successfully implementing Business Process
Reengineering (BPR) projects”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, Vol. 68 No. 6, pp. 1102-1119.
Fernandez, S. and Rainey, H.G. (2006), “Managing successful organizational change in the public
sector”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 66 No. 2, pp. 168-176.
Gospodarevskaya, E. and Churilov, L. (2011), “Process performance indicators in redesigning the
patient care process”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 1012-1038.
BPMJ Grant, D. (2016), “Business analysis techniques in business reengineering”, Business Process
Management Journal, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 75-88.
Grover, V. and Jeong, S.R. (1995), “The implementation of business process reengineering”, Journal of
Management Information Systems, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 109-144.
Grover, V., Jeong, S.R., Kettinger, W.J. and Teng, J.T. (1995), “The implementation of business process
reengineering”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 109-144.
Guimaraes, T. and Paranjape, K. (2013), “Testing success factors for manufacturing BPR project phases”,
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 68 Nos 9-12, pp. 1937-1947.
Habib, M.N. (2013), “Understanding critical success and failure factors of business process
reengineering”, International Review of Management and Business Research, Vol. 2 No. 1, p. 1.
Hammer, M. and Champy, J. (1993), Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business
Revolution, Harper Business, New York, NY.
Hesson, M. (2007), “Business process reengineering in UAE public sector: a naturalization and
residency case study”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 707-727.
Homa, P. (1995), “Business process re-engineering”, Business Process Re-Engineering and Management
Journal, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 10-30.
Jarrar, Y.F., Al-Mudimigh, A. and Zairi, M. (2000), “ERP implementation critical success factors – the
role and impact of business process management”, Proceedings of IEEE International
Conference on Management of Innovation and Technology (ICMIT), Singapore.
Khodambashi, S. (2013), “Business process Re-engineering application in healthcare in a relation to
health information systems”, Procedia Technology, Vol. 9, pp. 949-957.
Kumar, S. and Harms, R. (2004), “Improving business processes for increased operational efficiency: a
case study”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 15 No. 7, pp. 662-674.
Layton, M. (2012), Agile Project Management for Dummies, John Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, Chichester.
Leu, J.D. and Huang, Y.T. (2011), “An application of business process method to the clinical efficiency
of hospital”, Journal of Medical Systems, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 409-421.
Mabin, V.J., Forgeson, S. and Green, L. (2001), “Harnessing resistance: using the theory of constraints
to assist change management”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 25 Nos 2/3/4,
pp. 168-191.
MacBryde, J., Paton, S., Grant, N. and Bayliss, M. (2012), “Performance measurement driving change: a
case from the defence sector”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, Vol. 61 No. 5, pp. 462-482.
Malhotra, Y. (1998), “Business process redesign: an overview”, IEEE Engineering Management
Review, Vol. 26, pp. 27-31.
Martin, I. and Cheung, Y. (2000), “SAP and business process re-engineering”, Business Process
Management Journal, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 113-121.
Muthu, S., Whitman, L. and Cheraghi, S.H. (2006), “Business process reengineering: a consolidated
methodology”, Proceedings of the 4th Annual International Conference on Industrial Engineering
Theory, Applications and Practice, US Department of the Interior – Enterprise Architecture,
Washington, DC.
Omidi, A. and Khoshtinat, B. (2016), “Factors affecting the implementation of business process
reengineering: taking into account the moderating role of organizational culture (case study:
Iran air)”, Procedia Economics and Finance, Vol. 36, pp. 425-432.
Ovenden, T.R. (1994), “Business process Re-engineering: definitely worth considering”, The TQM
Magazine, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 56-61.
Ozcelik, Y. (2010), “Do business process reengineering projects payoff? Evidence from the United
States”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 7-13.
Radhakrishnan, R. and Balasubramanian, S. (2008), Business Process Reengineering: Text and Cases,
Phi Learning, New Delhi.
Ranganathan, C. and Dhaliwal, J.S. (2001), “A survey of business process reengineering practices in Strategies to
Singapore”, Information and Management, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 125-134.
overcome BPR
Redlein, A. and Simintiras, A.C. (2005), “Change management within FM”, available at: http://www.
irbnet.de/daten/iconda/CIB6395.pdf (accessed 9 January 2019).
issues
Remenyi, D., Williams, B., Money, A. and Swartz, E. (1998), Doing Research in Business and
Management. An Introduction to Process and Method, Sage Publications, London.
Sharp, A. (2002), “A briefing on business processes”, Business Briefing: Data Management and
Storage Technology, pp. 20-23.
Smith, I. (2011), “Organisational quality and organisational change: interconnecting paths to
effectiveness”, Library Management, Vol. 32 Nos 1/2, pp. 111-128.
Srivastava, A.K. and Sushil, (2017), “Alignment: the foundation of effective strategy execution”,
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 66 No. 8, pp. 1043-1063.
Temponi, C. (2006), “Scalable enterprise systems: quality management issues”, International Journal of
Production Economics, Vol. 99 Nos 1-2, pp. 222-235.
Teng, J.T., Grover, V. and Fiedler, K. (1994), “Errata: business process reengineering: charting a
strategic path for the information age”, California Management Review, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 9-31.
Tennant, C. and Wu, Y. (2005), “The application of business process reengineering in the UK”, The
TQM Magazine, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 537-545.
Terziovski, M., Fitzpatrick, P. and O’Neill, P. (2003), “Successful predictors of business process
reengineering (BPR) in financial services”, International Journal of Production Economics,
Vol. 84 No. 1, pp. 35-50.
Vakola, M., Rezgui, Y. and Wood-Harper, T. (2000), “The Condor business process re-engineering
model”, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 15 Nos 1/2, pp. 42-46.
Van der Vyver, A. and Rajapakse, J. (2012), “E-Government adoption and business process re-
engineering in developing countries: Sri Lankan and South African case studies”, International
Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, Vol. 3 No. 6.
Wells, M.G. (2000), “Business process re-engineering implementations using Internet technology”,
Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 164-184.
Wu, I.L. (2003), “Understanding senior management’s behavior in promoting the strategic role of IT in
process reengineering: use of the theory of reasoned action”, Information and Management,
Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 1-11.
Xiang, J., Archer, N. and Detlor, B. (2014), “Business process redesign project success: the role of socio-
technical theory”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 773-792.
Yaseen, Z. and Okour, A. (2012), “Managing organizational change: decision’s maker perceptions in
the UAE manufacturing industry”, IJRSM, Vol. 1 No. 1.
Yin, R.K. (2011), Qualitative Research from Start to Finish, 1st ed., The Guilford Press, New York, NY.
Zhao, F. (2004), “Management of information technology and business process re-engineering: a case
study”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 104 No. 8, pp. 674-680.

Corresponding author
M.F.F. Fasna can be contacted at: fasna.fm2013@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com