INTRODUCTION

Business process re-engineering (BPR) or process improvement emerged as a significant

business trend in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Companies were eager to re-invent the way they
do business and improve their bottom-line performance. Some of the primary business objectives
that were the basis for most BPR projects were to: improve customer service; increase market
share; reduce the cycle time inherent in business operations and reduce the cost of operations.

The concept promotes radical change, focusing on processes rather than functions, and on the use
of information technology as an enabler. Some firms have used BPR to change their strategic
orientation, others to eliminate performance bottlenecks, and yet others have seen it as a more
effective way to go about technological changes.

Explain BPR? When to take BPR?

 Davenport & Short (1990) define business process as “a set of logically related tasks performed
to achieve a defined business outcome.
 Hammer (1990) has defined Business Process Reengineering “ the fundamental rethinking and
radical redesign of business processes to achieve dramatic improvements in critical,
contemporary measures of performance, such as cost, quality, service, and speed
”.This definition comprises four keywords: fundamental, radical, dramatic and processes.
 Keyword 1: Fundamental
 
Understanding the fundamental operations of business is the first step prior to reengineering.
Business peoplemust ask the most basic questions about their companies and how they operate:
“Why do we do what we do?” and “Why do we do it the way we do?” Asking these basic
questions lead people to understand the fundamental operations and to think why the old rules
and assumptions exist. Often, these rules and assumptions are inappropriate and obsolete.
 Keyword 2: Radical
 
Radical redesign means disregarding all existing structures and procedures, and inventing
completely new ways of accomplishing work. Reengineering is about business reinvention,
begins with no assumptions and takes nothing for granted.
 Keyword 3: Dramatic
 
Reengineering is not about making marginal improvements or modification but about achieving
dramatic improvements in performance. There are three kinds of companies that undertake
reengineering in general. First are companies that find themselves in deep trouble. They have no
choice. Second are companies that fore see themselves in trouble because of changing economic
environment. Third are companies that are in the peak conditions. They see reengineering as a
chance to further their lead over their competitors.
 Keyword 4: Processes
 
The final keyword “Process”, though the most important in the definition, is the one that gives
most corporate managers the greatest difficulty. Most business people are not process-oriented;
they are focused on tasks, on jobs, on people, on structures, but not on processes.

BPR is done by
1. Companies at its declining stages.
2. Companies in its stable stages.
3. Companies in their peak stages.
Difference between continuous improvement and BPR 
Continuous improvement is an approach to improving the competitiveness, effectiveness and
flexibility of a whole organization. It is essentially a way of planning, organizing and
understanding each activity, and depends on each individual at each level. CONTINOUS
IMPROVEMENT involves placing the customer as the focal point of operations. Its aim is to
continuously improve process performance in order to satisfy customer requirements. At the
center of TQM is the concept of the management of processes, and the existence of internal
suppliers and customers within organizations. BPR also emphasizes focus on the process.
However, BPR is much more radical than CONTINOUSIMPROVEMENT. Quality approaches
concentrate on improving existing processes; process reengineering starts from scratch to create
new processes without the constraints of existing methods, people, technology, management
systems, or organizational structures. The major differences between Quality Improvement and
Process Reengineering approaches are provided by
Chang (1994)
in the following table:
Relationship Between BPR and Information Technology Information Technology (IT) refers to
“ the capabilities offered by computers, software applications, and telecommunications
”.
(Davenport & Short, 1990) Hammer (1990) considers IT as the key enabler of BPR, which he
considers as "radical change." He prescribes the use of IT to challenge the assumptions inherent
in the work processes that have existed since long before the advent of modern computer and
communications technology.
 Davenport & Short (1990) argue that BPR requires taking a broader view of both IT and
business activity, and of the relationships between them. IT and BPR have recursive relationship.
IT capabilities should support business processes, and business processes should be in terms of
the capabilities IT can provide. Davenport & Short (1990 ) refer to this broadened, recursive
view of IT and BPR as “the new industrial engineering”. In order to more effectively respond to
BPR, IT must play a more active role throughout a BPR project. IT must:

 •Increase their level of participation in all areas of a BPR initiative;

 •Provide key information regarding automated processes to business analysts;
 •Build a transition strategy that meets short and long-term retooling requirements;
 •Enforce the integrity of redesigned business processes in the target system;
 •Reuse business rules and related components that remain constant in a target application.

Factors driving a BPR project can include improving customer service, streamlining processes to
cut costs, or addressing inefficiencies in other high impact areas. For example, customers
frustrated with having to speak to multiple individuals regarding an insurance claim may switch
to the competition. To address this problem, an insurance provider determines that service
functions must be consolidated to one point of contact. The underlying systems that manage
claims handling do not support single point of contact processing. In this case, legacy systems
have become a barrier to the success of the BPR initiative. The relationship of BPR analysis and
IT is reciprocal because business and technical analysts must devise a continuous feedback
communication loop for projects to work. This is particularly critical because current systems
analysis helps articulate the as-is business model while the redesigned business model dictates
the impact BPR has on existing information architectures. Once this reciprocal cycle is in place,
IT can determine exactly how to upgrade, redesign, or replace selected systems in order to
implement reengineered business processes. Figure one highlights key steps in a retooling
strategy. Finally, Attaran (2003) categorizes IT roles in BPR into three phases:
Phase 1 before the process design (as an enabler)
 Create infrastructures and manage information that support evolving organization
 Foster process thinking in organizations
 Identify and select process for redesign
 Participate in predicting the nature of change and anticipate the information needs to
support that change
 Educate IT staff in non-technical issues such as marketing, customer relationships, etc.
 Participate in designing measures of success/failures of reengineering
Phase 2: During the process design (as a facilitator)
 Bring vast amounts of information into the process
 Bring complex analytical methods to bear on the process
 Enhance employees’ ability to make more informed decisions with less reliance on
formal vertical information flows
 Identify enablers for process design
 Capture the nature of proposed change and match IT strategy to that change
 Capture and disseminate knowledge and expertise to improve the process
 Communicate ongoing results of the BPR effort
 Transform unstructured processes into routinized transactions
 Reduce/replace labor in a process
 Measure performance of current process
  Define clear performance goals and objectives to drive the implementation
 Define the boundaries and scope of the process
Phase 3: During the implementation (as an implementer)
 Create a digital feedback loop
 Establish resources for critical evaluation of the reengineered process
 Improve IT processes to meet increasing needs of those divisions that have gone under
reengineering processes
 Institute a program of ‘‘cleanup’’ and damage control in case of failure
 Communicate ongoing results of the BPR effort
 Help to build commitment to BPR
 Evaluate the potential investment and return of reengineering efforts

Reengineering Success Factors

More than half of early reengineering projects failed to be completed or did not achieve bottom-
line business results, and for this reason business process reengineering "success factors" have
become an important area of study. Success factors are a collection of lessons learned from
reengineering projects and from these lessons common themes have emerged. The success
factors that lead to successful outcomes for reengineering projects include:
1. Top Management Sponsorship (strong and consistent involvement)
2. Strategic Alignment (with company strategic direction)
3. Compelling Business Case for Change (with measurable objectives)
4. Proven Methodology (that includes a vision process)
5. Effective Change Management (address cultural transformation)
6. Line Ownership (pair ownership with accountability)
7. Reengineering Team Composition (in both breadth and knowledge)

Top Management Sponsorship

Major business process change typically affects processes, technology, job roles and culture in
the workplace. Significant changes to even one of these areas require resources, money, and
leadership. Changing them simultaneously is an extraordinary task. If top management does not
provide strong and consistent support, most likely one of these three elements (money, resources,
or leadership) will not be present over the life of the project, severely crippling your chances for
success.
Strategic Alignment
You should be able to tie your reengineering project goals back to key business objectives and
the overall strategic direction for the organization. This linkage should show the thread from the
top down, so each person can easily connect the overall business direction with your
reengineering effort. You should be able to demonstrate this alignment from the perspective of
financial performance, customer service, associate (employee) value, and the vision for the
organization.
Business Case for Change
In one page or less you must be able to communicate the business case for change. Less is
preferred. If it requires more than this, you either don't understand the problem or you don't
understand your customers. The business case for change will remain the center piece that
defines your project, and should be a living document that the reengineering team uses to
demonstrate success. Financial pay back and real customer impact from major change initiatives
are difficult to measure and more difficult to obtain; without a rigorous business scase both are
unlikely.
Proven Methodology
The previous module presented several BPR methodologies, and it is important to note that your
methodology does matter. Seat-of-the-pants reengineering is just too risky given the size of the
investment and impact these projects have on processes and people. Not only should your team
members understand reengineering, they should know how to go about it. In short, you need an
approach that will meet the needs of your project and one that the team understands and
supports.
Change Management
One of the most overlooked obstacles to successful project implementation is resistance from
those whom implementers believe will benefit the most. Most projects underestimate the cultural
impact of major process and structural change, and as a result do not achieve the full potential of
their change effort.
Line Ownership
The line operation probably cannot heal itself when it comes to major business re-design. Staff
and consultants have no lasting accountability for the solution, and never succeed at forcing
solutions on line organizations. You need both. You need the line organization to have the
awareness that they need help, to contribute their knowledge, and to own the solution and
implementation. At the same time you need the expertise and objectivity from outside of the
organization. Building this partnership is the responsibility of the line organization, stakeholders
and re-design team. No group is off the hook.
Reengineering Team Composition
The reengineering team composition should be a mixed bag. For example,
 some members who don't know the process at all,
 some members that know the process inside-out,
 include customers if you can,
 some members representing impacted organizations,
 one or two technology gurus,
 each person your best and brightest, passionate and committed, and
 some members from outside of your company

FACTORS DETERMINED TO HINDER REENGINEERING SUCCESS

Fear of job loss
Somewhere during this century, reengineering became synonymous with downsizing and worker
layoffs. However, many of the early corporate projects did not include such drastic measures.
Unfortunately, when companies take on a project that will cost extremely large amounts of
capital, senior management wants to see some hard evidence that there will be a huge savings
somewhere. One of the easiest ways to provide a cost/benefit to a BPR project is cut the
workforce. Many cases have shown this only reduces the available talent pool of an organization.
Fear and anxiety fill the hearts of those workers remaining. Downsizing can profoundly affect
the lives and productivity of individuals, whether they leave the organization or survive the
downsizing Therefore, BPR drives fear into the organization and destroys the two entire social
segment of the socio-technical system which produces the product or service
Inadequate skills of workers
An organization can be categorized by people into three categories; eager adopters, prove-its,
and resisters. Only about 10 to 15 percent of people are considered eager adopters. These people
like technology and are stimulated by learning how to use it. The other 85% probably don't have
the skills for BPR with IT, but may not admit to it. No reengineering effort will succeed without
first reeducating and retraining the people who will ultimately work with the new process The
focus needs to be on the people not on the processes.
BPR Lack of management support
Became the method to wipe the slate clean and start over with business processes. However, far
too often this was applied to employees and middle managers. Senior management sometimes
felt it was not necessary for them to also change with IT. However, when employees found out
the CEO has his secretary retrieve and sends his E-mail; credibility for a new system project was
lost. Management often allows money to be thrown around purchasing technology, but then
overlook financing training of people necessary to infuse or utilize the IT. Strong leadership is
necessary if BPR projects are not to be ruined by psychological and political disruptions that
accompany change
Change of organizational structure and culture
Human passions and emotions react strongly when the prospect of change intrudes on their
familiar working and living patterns. It is believed that the necessary cooperation to achieve
success will not occur unless people are assured they will not be working themselves out of a
job. .

What is a Business Process?

 Davenport & Short (1990) define business process as “ a set of logically related tasks performed
to achieve a defined business outcome
”.In their view, processes have two important characteristics:
 They have customers, that is, processes have defined outcomes, and there are recipients
of the outcomes.
 They cross organizational boundaries, that is, they normally occur across or between
organizational sub units.
On the other hand, Hammer & Champy (1993) define business process as “ a collection of
activities that takes one or more kinds of input and creates an output that is of value to the
customer ”.Examples of processes include: developing a new product; ordering goods from a
supplier, creating a marketing plan, processing and paying an insurance claim, etc.
 Davenport & Short (1990) have categorized business processes according to three dimensions:
 Organizational entities or subunits involved in the process (Inter organizational, Inter
functional, and Interpersonal Processes)
 The type of objects manipulated (Physical and Informational Processes)
 The type of activities taking place (Operational and Managerial Processes) Different
process types require different levels of management attention and ownership, need
different forms of IT support, and have different business consequences
A business process or  business method is a collection of related, structured activities or tasks
that produce a specific service or product (serve a particular goal) for a particular customer or
customers. It often can be visualized with a flowchart as a sequence of activities. The core
business of an organization is an idealized construct intended to express that organization's
"main" or "essential" activity. The corporate trend in the mid-20th Century of acquiring new
enterprises and forming conglomerates enabled corporations to reduce costs funds and similar
investment vehicles, and sometimes the following of a popular trend among corporate
management seeking to appear current and impress investors. Core business process means that a
firm's success depends not only on how well each department performs its work, but also on how
well the company manage to coordinate departmental activities to conduct the core business
process, which is;
1. The market-sensing process -Meaning all activities in gathering marketing intelligence and
acting on the information.
2. The new-offering realization process Covering all activities in research, development and
launching new quality offerings quickly and within budget.
3. The customer acquisition process all the activities defining the target market and prospecting
for newcustomers4.
The customer relationship management processes all the activities covering building
deeper understanding, relationships and offerings to individual customers.
5. The fulfillment management process all the activities in receiving and approving orders,
shipping out on time and collecting payment. To be successful, a firm needs to look for
competitive advantages beyond its own operations. The firm needs to look at the competitiveness
value chain of suppliers, distributors and customers. Many companies today have partnered with
specific suppliers and distributors to create a superior value delivery network.
Task and sub-process
A business process is mainly formed by activities that need to be performed to complete the
process. There are two kinds of activities - task and sub-process. A task is an atomic activity
which represents work that cannot be broken down. On the contrary, sub-process represents
work that can be broken down to a finer level of detail
Flow Chart
A flow process chart is a diagram that utilizes both text and symbols to show the actions required
to complete a given process. This type of chart lays out each step in chronological order, with
symbols indicating the beginning and ending of the process as well as decisions and actions that
occur along the way. A flow process chart is useful for visualizing the procedure in question and
identifying areas of weakness. Process flow symbols typically include three distinct shapes. An
oval is used to signify the beginning and ending points of the process. A rectangle indicates
actions, and a diamond indicates a decision. Each shape is connected to other shapes by an
arrow, which leads the viewer from one process to the next. Each shape contains words
describing that step of the process. A flow process chart typically has a single start point. This
may be labeled "Start" or it may indicate the purpose of the chart, such as "Customer Service
Call." From this point, arrows will lead to possible actions or decisions. Continuing with the
previous example, a flow process chart on dealing with customer service calls may include
questions that the caller should be asked, such as "What system are you operating on?" Each
question will branch out to possible answers. These answers may lead to another question to
further clarify the problem, or a solution which will effectively achieve the goal of the call. After
a series of decisions and actions, the flow process chart will ultimately lead to an end point.
Some charts will have a single beginning and end, while others can result in multiple
conclusions. A customer service call could end with a variety of solutions fitting for the problem.
The chart may end there, or point each solution to another action, such as a prompt to complete a
survey on the effectiveness of the service. Actions or decisions that apply to more than one
scenario will not appear multiple times on a flow process chart. The unifying process will appear
once with multiple arrows leading up to it. If the final goal of the flow chart is the same
regardless of the process, the oval signifying the end point of the chart may be traced back to
multiple actions or decisions. A flow process chart is a useful tool for businesses, as it can
provide a visual of the actions that are taken throughout the course of a process. If the process
seems overly complicated, this chart will help identify weak  points where it can be clarified or
improved. A flow process chart is also useful for making decisions. It can provide easy-to-read
instructions for following the correct procedure in a variety of situations.
Support Process -Activity or function that supports the day-to-day operations of an organization,
such as accounting, communications, maintenance, sales .
1.1 Trigger for BPR

According to MacDonald (1996), re-engineering efforts usually start when a company realizes
that meeting the demands of the customers means that it needs to do better in one or more areas.
The driving force, which sets this in motion, can come from external assessments or from
internal examinations of the company's operations.

External assessments include tools such as benchmarking and customer surveys. Benchmarking
involves comparing the company's performance to that of other companies. The companies used
for comparison can either be competitors or world-class leaders in unrelated industries. Customer
surveys open up a conversation between the company and its customers and can often reveal
opportunities to re-engineer.

Re-engineering initiatives can also originate from internal reviews of the company operations.
As the company conducts these reviews, there are a number of red flags that can indicate an
opportunity to re-engineer. Some of these red flags are:

 High proportion of non-value-added steps. Non value-added activities can be thought of

as those activities the customers would not be willing to pay for. If "as is" process
mapping efforts reveal a great deal of these, then there may be an opportunity to re-
engineer.
  Administrative and overhead costs growing at a faster rate than sales. As companies
grow, their manual processes usually become slow and inefficient. Companies try to
remedy this by hiring more staff. This occurs frequently in rapidly growing companies.
These processes can often be streamlined and automated.

 Excessive checks and reconciliation. The company should try to capture data once, at the
source, and not downstream. Capturing data downstream usually results in wasted time
spent verifying accuracy, reconciling, and re-keying the data

 Processes, which take a long time relative to the competition. Competitors who can bring
new products to market faster or who can deliver finished goods to customers faster are
sure signs of the need to take a hard look at the company’s own processes and improve
their performance.

 Excessive fragmentation. Related activities spread across personnel in multiple

departments usually represents significant opportunity to strengthen these activities. This
typically results in greater efficiency and better accountability for results.

1.2 Tools and Techniques

According to MacDonald (1996) there are several tools and techniques, which can be used in re-
engineering efforts. Two techniques often used in practice are "as-is" process analysis and "to-
be" process visioning.

As-is process analysis is the act of mapping, in strict detail, the way the process works today.
This exercise almost always leads to a number of improvement items that an organization can
implement almost immediately. It also helps to determine the degree of change required.
Commonly used tools for as-is process analysis include flow-charting and performance
measurement. Creating flow charts is a good way to describe the complexity of the process,
including all of the decision points, rework loops and non-value-added activities. Performance
measurement is especially useful for identifying opportunities by examining actual vs. expected
results in key areas.

"To-be" process visioning is determining what the process could, or should, be. It involves
creative, "out-of-the-box" thinking about what the business process could achieve if the old
paradigms about the way the process works today are challenged. The focus of the to-be process
vision is to set goals for the performance of the process and to re-design it to achieve these
performance objectives.

According to Zairi and Sinclair (1995), BPR can be seen to represent a range of activities
concerned with the improvement of processes. They point out that some authors appear to
suggest that tools and techniques are the key and other authors suggest that a strategic approach
to BPR, and the development of a BPR strategy are the keys to success. There seems to be little
doubt that efforts on the scale of BPR must be strategically driven and supported by senior
management if they are to succeed. BPR, as a strategic, cross-functional activity, must be
integrated with other aspects of management if it is to succeed. These aspects are the following:

 Process visualization. The key to successful re-engineering lies in the development of a

vision of the process.

 Operational research/method study. The tools of operational research and method study
are ideally suited to the re-engineering task, but that they are often neglected.

 Information technology. Information technology, including the use of systems analysis

techniques as well as the design of new hardware and software, forms a core of the re-
engineering effort.
  Change management. Several authors concentrate on the need to take account of the
human side of re-engineering, in particular the management of organizational change.
Some authors suggest that the management of change is the largest task in re-engineering.
Others incorporate the human element of re-engineering as an important consideration.
People often perceive re-engineering as a threat to both their methods of work and their
jobs.

 Benchmarking. Several authors suggest that benchmarking forms an integral part of re-
engineering, since it allows the visualization and development of processes, which are
known to be in operation in other organizations.

 Industrial engineering. Industrial engineers are in a unique position to perform the

benchmarking operations required in BPR, due to their technical knowledge of processes.

 Process and customer focus. The primary aim of BPR, according to some authors, is to
redesign processes with regard to improving performance from the customer's
perspective. This provides a strong link with the process improvement methodologies
suggested by authors from the quality field. In some cases, the terminology is almost
identical to that used by quality practitioners in the improvement of processes. The major
difference, as outlined earlier, appears to be one of scale.

It should be noted that few authors refer to any single technique when discussing BPR. Most
incorporate a mixture of tools from the above list, although the nature of the mix depends on the
focus of the author concerned, whether it is technological or involving the management of
people.

1.3 How to Re-engineer?

Davenport and Short (1990) identify five steps in a reengineering exercise:

1. Develop a business vision and related objectives: this requires doing more than just
rationalizing current processes. The vision helps identify a more global process at the
heart of the organization, without referring to departmental boundaries. Most common
objectives include cost reduction, delay reduction, product quality, work condition,
training and empowerment.

2. Identify the process to redesign: practical limits may require choosing a small number of
processes to focus on. Ideally the ones chosen are the most critical to the business vision.

3. Understand and measure existing process: these measures help understand the mistakes
to be avoided and will serve as a basis to evaluate the new process.

4. Identify relevant information technology: technology can be used to discover the structure
of the new process. For instance, communication technologies help coordinate
geographically separated parties.

5. Design and construct a prototype of the new process: effectiveness at this step will
mainly depend on the design team's creativity. Solutions can be evaluated with a variety
of criteria, such as the probability of meeting initial objectives, simplicity, absence of
intermediaries, degree of control held by an individual or department, resource balance
and task generalizability. The prototype continues to be evaluated and modified after
implementation.

The simplicity of the re-engineering approach is probably an important reason for its popularity.
This simplicity, however, provides BPR project managers with very few guidelines as to how to
avoid risky situations and achieve the promise of dramatically improved performance.

Armistead and Harrison (1995) present a list of eight rules to guide the improvement of
processes:
 1. Organize around outcomes not tasks.
2. Have those who use the output of the process perform the process.
3. Treat geographically dispersed resources as though they were centralized creating hybrid
centralized/decentralized organizations.
4. Link activities in a natural order and perform them in parallel.
5. Perform work where it makes most sense, particularly, decision making, information
processing, checks and controls making them part of the process.
6. Capture information once and at the source, minimizing reconciliation.
7. Combine several jobs into one possibly creating a case manager or case team as a single
point of contact.
8. Create multiple versions of processes when appropriate.

1.4 Challenges Faced by Re-engineering Efforts

According to Romney (1994), companies that begin BPR projects face many of the following
challenges:

 Resistance. Change, especially radical change, always meets a great deal of resistance. In
many cases this is the most serious problem companies face in BPR.

 Tradition. Traditional ways of doing things do not die easily; they are often a part of the
organization's culture. This means the culture and beliefs held by individuals will also
have to change.

 Time Requirements. BPR is a lengthy process, almost always taking two or more years to
complete.
  Costs. It is costly to examine thoroughly the way business is handled and to question the
way everything is done in order to find a faster and more efficient way to accomplish it.

 Scepticism. Some people are sceptical about BPR. Some view it as traditional systems
development, but in a new wrapper with a fancy name. Others don't believe it can be
done. A big obstacle is outlasting those who say it cannot be done.

 Job Losses. BPR often results in employees being laid off. Some estimates range as high
as 25 million jobs being eliminated before BPR runs its course.

REDESIGN PRINCIPLES

1. we present ten redesign principles introduced by El Sawy (1999). That can be used kin
redesign process
Principle 0. Streamline
Remove waste, simplify, and consolidate similar activities.

The services to customers are brought together and the customer can’t see the processes behind
the HelpDesk. The other teams don’t have to worry about the customer contacts; they can
concentrate on their own tasks. The HelpDesk provides services to many customers. The
information from one customer’s problems can be used to solve other customer’s similar
situations. This way the knowledge and expertise develop.
Principle 1. Lose Wait
Squeeze out waiting time in process links and create value from that.

This process does not produce physical products and squeezing out waiting times means making
the information flow more efficient. TietoEnator has agreed with their customers on problem
solving times. The customers are aware of how long a specific service request takes to be solved
and they know exactly how long they have to wait.
Principle 2. Orchestrate
Let the swiftest and most able enterprise execute.

TietoEnator is the most able enterprise to execute - there is no outsourcing in HelpDesk process.

Principle 3. Mass-Customize
Flex the process for any time, any place, any way.

The HelpDesk process is available any time. Between 6 am to 10 pm the services are available
any way. Customer may contact the HelpDesk by phone or e-mail. Between 10 pm and 6 am
only phone calls are directed to TietoEnator’s global HelpDesk at Helsinki. The e-mail requests
are processed the next working day. HelpDesk provides services to all the customer’s locations,
but in all office hours.

Principle 4. Synchronize
Synchronize the physical and virtual parts of the process.

This principle is not relevant in HelpDesk’s case.

Principle 5. Digitize & Propagate

Capture information digitally at the source and propagate it throughout the process.

Capturing information digitally is partly implemented at HelpDesk case. Some customers have
direct contact to the TOMS system, which allows them to fill in the service request form
themselves. In other cases, the HelpDesk personnel must enter the information to the TOMS
system manually.

Principle 6. Vitrify
Provide glass-like visibility through fresher and richer information about process status.
If the customer has the online contact to the TOMS system, they can monitor the state of the
service requests. This is only possible if the customer is linked into the system. Providing
visibility to the customer is seen as one of the further development areas in HelpDesk process.

Principle7. Sensitize
Fit the process with vigilant sensors and feedback loops that can prompt action.

The process does not have any automatic feedback loops. According to the interviewee the
feedback is mainly received when something goes wrong. The department managers have
meetings with their customers on monthly basis where the processes and provided services are
discussed in a detailed level. In addition to this a customer satisfaction questionnaire is delivered
to customers once a year. This is used to collect customer’s ideas and opinions about provided
service.

Principle 8. Analyze & Synthesize

Augment the interactive analysis and synthesis capabilities around a process to generate value-
added service.

The statistics of solving times and other follow-up information are used to improve and add
value to the customer service.

Principle 9. Connect, Collect & Create

Grow intelligently reusable knowledge around the process through all who touch it.

Capturing knowledge is one of the key issues around the HelpDesk process. All the service
requests and their solutions are recorded into a knowledge base. The information in knowledge
bases can be used to solve same type of problems in the future. These information sources are
available to all employees at the department.

Principle 10. Personalize

Make the process intimate with the preferences and habits of participants.
This is not relevant issue at the HelpDesk process. The HelpDesk knows it’s customer situation
and their business well, but the knowledge about this is not something that could be
personalized.

2. Hammer is the proponent of this form of BPR. He argues that reengineering should "strive to
break away from the old rules about how to organise and conduct business. It involves
recognising and rejecting some of them and then finding imaginative new ways to accomplish
work. From redesigned processes, new rules will emerge that fit the times". For Hammer, the
role of IT in a BPR project is to challenge the assumptions inherent in the work processes that
have existed since long before the advent of modern computer and communications technology.
He also suggests the following seven principles in order to embark a successful reengineering
effort:

(1) Organise around outcomes, not tasks,

(2) Have those who use the output of the process perform the process,

(3) Subsume information-processing work into the real work that produces the information,

(4) Treat geographically dispersed resources as though they were centralised,

(5) Link parallel activities instead of integrating their results,

(6) Put the decision point where the work is performed, and build control into the process,

(7) Capture information once and at the source.

Despite the fact that many researchers may disagree with Hammer's radical approach to
reengineering, the above principles seem to apply in general as they reflect information age
requirements, that is flatter, customer centred and competitive organisations.

Davenport and Short suggest a more modest approach to BPR. They consider reengineering as a

combination of the radical change approach and the discipline of continuous process
improvement. According to them business process reengineering is "the analysis and design of

workflows and processes within and between organisations". They recommend a structured and

controlled approach to reengineering, which involves the selection of the most critical and

important processes of the organisation, the analysis of their current performance and their

redesign. On the contrary BPR refers to discrete initiatives that are intended to achieve radically

redesigned and improved work processes in a bounded time frame [Yogesh Malhotra].

Based on the above major perspectives, many researchers have introduced several methodologies
to support a BPR effort. An organisation has to choose between these approaches to support a
BPR project, but none of them is a panacea. The challenge in structuring a project for improving
the performance of business processes, is to select the approach that is best suited to the situation
in hand, taking into account organisation objectives, capabilities and economic or competitive
requirements.

The majority of BPR methodologies share common features and steps. In the following sections
we describe a representative sample of these methodologies. In the end we describe the
differences of these methodologies and the value and the importance of each special step in a
BPR effort. Moreover, the main reasons behind the failure of BPR projects are discussed and a
list of factors that should be considered in order a reengineering effort to be successful is
provided. Finally,

The Hammer / Champy methodology

Hammer and Champy define BPR as the “fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of
business processes to achieve dramatic improvements in critical, contemporary measures of
performance, such as cost, quality, service and speed”. In fact a BPR effort changes practically
everything in the organisation: people, jobs, managers and values, because these aspects are
linked together. Hammer and Champy call these aspects the four points of the business system
diamond, which is depicted in Figure 1.

Business Processes

Jobs and
Values and Beliefs
Structures
 Measurement Systems

Figure 1. The business system diamond

According to them IT plays a crucial role in BPR, especially when it is used to challenge the
assumptions inherent in the work processes that have existed since long before the advent of
modern computer and communication technology. Inductive thinking is needed in order to
recognise the power inherent in modern IT and to visualise its application. This means that
instead of first defining a problem and then seeking and evaluating different solutions to it, it is
more efficient to first recognise a powerful solution and then seek the problems it might solve.
Since, reengineering is about innovation and not automation, one of its most difficult parts is
recognising the “new” capabilities of technologies.

Hammer and Champy consider poor management and unclear objectives as the main problems to
BPR success, but initially they failed to give adequate consideration to the human factor. Only
recently they acknowledge people’s resistance as a major obstacle to a successful BPR
undertaking.

Hammer and Champy suggested a methodology for BPR, which was refined by Champer’s
Consultant Company. The six phases of the methodology are next presented:

1. Introduction into Business Reengineering

The first step in reengineering is to prepare and communicate the “case for action” and the
“vision statement”. The “case for action” is a description of the organisation’s business problem
and current situation; it presents justification for the need for change. The “vision statement”
describes how the organisation is going to operate and outlines the kind of results it must
achieve. This qualitative and quantitative statement can be used during a BPR effort, as a
reminder of reengineering objectives, as a metric for measuring the progress of the project, and
as a prod to keep reengineering action going.

The articulation and the communication of the case for action and the vision statement is the
leader’s (CEO) responsibility, who should inform firstly the senior management team and
secondly the rest of the organisation.

2. Identification of Business Processes

During this phase, the most important business processes are identified and are described from a
global perspective using a set of process maps. Process maps give a picture of the work flows
through the company. They show high-level processes, which can be decomposed into sub-
processes on separate sub-process maps. Process maps are also used as a means of
communication to help people discuss reengineering. The output of this phase is a number of
process maps reflecting how these high-level processes interact within the company and in
relation to the outside world.

3. Selection of Business Processes

It is unrealistic to reengineer all the high level processes of an organisation at the same time.
Therefore, it has to be decided which are the processes to be redesigned. This is a very important
part of a BPR effort. Candidate for reengineering are the most problematic processes those with
great impact to customers or processes with more chances to be successfully reengineered,
processes that contribute to organisation’s objectives and so on.

According to an organisation’s strategic objectives more criteria could be defined for selecting
processes for redesign, such as whether a process contributes to the organisation’s strategic
direction, has an impact on customer’s satisfaction e.t.c.

4. Understanding of Selected Business Processes

Before proceeding to redesign, the reengineering team needs to gain a better understanding of the
existing selected processes, concerning what they do, how well or how poorly they perform, and
the critical issues that govern their performance. Detailed analysis and documentation of current
processes is not within the scope of this phase. The objective is the provision of a high level view
of the process under consideration, in order the team members to have the intuition and insight
required to create a totally new and superior design.
5. Redesign of the Selected Business Processes

This is the most creative phase of the methodology, because new rules and new ways of work
should be invented. Imagination and inductive thinking should characterise this phase.
Redesigning a process is not algorithmic or routine and therefore Hammer and Champy suggest
three kinds of techniques that can help reengineering teams to generate new ideas:

As redesign proceeds teams can consider these techniques again to stimulate additional thought.

6. Implementation of Redesigned Business Processes

The last phase covers the implementation phase of the BPR project. Hammer/Champy do not
talk about implementation as much about project planning. They believe that the success of the
implementation depends on whether the five preliminary phases have been properly performed.

Davenport’s and Short’s methodology

Davenport and Short position IT at the heart of BPR. They recognise the existence of a recursive
relationship between IT capabilities and BPR, meaning that IT should be considered in terms of
how it supports new or redesigned business processes, and recursively business processes and
process improvement should be considered in terms of the capabilities IT can provide. Despite
their emphasis on innovation and technology, they recognise the importance of organisation and
human resource issues as to change management, and suggest the use of traditional management
approaches like planning, directing decision making and communicating.

Believing that BPR should be integrated with approaches like Continuous Process Improvement
(CPI) [Reference is needed], Davenport and Short suggest that the redesign effort of an
organisation involve five major steps.

The first three steps are very similar to Hammer’s methodology. Things differentiate after the
fourth step.

1. Develop Business Vision and Process Objectives

During this step the objectives and the business vision of an organisation are defined. A business
vision implies specific objectives for process redesign, such as: Cost Reduction, Time reduction,
Output Quality, the Quality of Worklife and the Quality of Learning.
The objectives are prioritised and stretch targets are set. A redesign effort does not aim at
improving processes’ performance, so that they contribute to the fulfilment of the vision and the
objectives of the organisation.

2. Identify Processes to Be Redesigned

The most important processes are identified and prioritised according to their redesign potential.
Key business processes are identified either by identification and prioritzation of all processes
(exhaustive approach) or by identification of important processes or processes in conflict with
conflict with the business vision and process objectives (high impact approach).

3. Understand and Measure Existing Processes

The functionality of selected process is understood here and their performance is measured
against the specific reengineering objectives. It is important that designers think in an innovative
way and are not restricted or influenced by the analysis of current situation.

4. Identify IT levers

IT is a powerful tool not only for supporting processes but also for creating new process design
options; therefore, it has its own step in process redesign. The authors suggest eight ways to
think about IT capabilities and their organisational impacts, which are summarised in Table 1.

Table 1. IT capabilities and their organisational impact

Capability Organisational Impact/Benefit

Transactional IT can transform unstructured processes into routinized

transactions

Geographical IT can transfer information with rapidity and ease across

large distances, making processes independent of
geography

Automational IT can replace or reduce human labour in a process

Analytical IT can bring complex analytical methods to bear on a

process

Informational IT can bring vast amounts or detailed information into a

process
Sequential IT can enable changes in the sequence of tasks in a process,
often allowing multiple tasks to be worked on
simultaneously

Knowledge IT allows the capture and dissemination of knowledge and

management expertise to improve the process

Tracking IT allows the detailed tracking of task status, inputs, and

outputs

Disintermediation IT can be used to connect two parties within a process that

would otherwise communicate through an intermediary
(internal or external)

5. Design and Build a Prototype of the Process

The final step in a redesign effort is the design of the new process. The actual design of the new
process should be viewed as a prototype and successive iterations should be expected. Three key
factors and tactics are considered in process design and prototype:

 using IT as a Design Tool

 understanding generic design criteria

 creating organisational prototypes

2.3 Process Analysis and Design Method (PADM)

Process analysis and design methodology (PADM) was introduced by the Informatics Process
Group (IPG) at Manchester University as a framework of tools and techniques, which can be
used in a BPR effort according to particular circumstances.

PADM is an offspring of Process Modelling Cookbook, a collection of techniques, which can be

used for business process (re)engineering. The Process Modelling Cookbook comprises two
phases:

 Representation, which is an activity for developing knowledge and understanding of a

process,

 Refinement, during which the knowledge gained during the representation, is used in order to
consider change and to respond to problems, inconsistencies, concerns e.t.c.

An important feature of this Cookbook is that it provides a framework for continuous process
improvement. PADM inherits this feature: its activities may iterate for continuous process
improvement.

Several techniques and philosophies influence the methodology, mainly the Soft Systems
Methodology (SSM) and Sociotechnical Systems Design(SSD). SSM was developed at Lancaster
University and is a technique for structuring complex unstructured problems [M29]. It is used in
many areas and particularly in the information system development for exploring and defining
user requirements. SSD is based on the idea that organisations are sociotechnical systems
meaning that they comprised a technical and a social subsystem. Organisation’s performance
depends on both these systems and their interrelation. The methodology has to do with the joint
design of the technical subsystem and the social subsystem in such a way that they support each
other. The aim of the design is to optimise both for efficiency and job satisfaction and
motivation.

At the heart of PADM there is an effort to manage the relationship between the support
technology and the organisation. This comes from the fact that the method recognises a recursive
relationship between technology and processes. The introduction of new technology in an
organisation affects its processes, and in order to change a process some alterations to the
support technology may be required.

Figure 2 shows the general structure of PADM. There are four major phases and the BPR effort
takes place within a strategic business context. As we can notice the methodology does not
address the issue of process selection in its current form. It focuses mainly on analysis and
design once a process has been identified and selected for improvement. The four phases are not
performed in strict sequential order. They form a complex activity in which the individual stages
reciprocally interact.

Business
Strategy

Selected
process

Process Baseline Process Target

Definition Process Evaluation Process
Capture Design

Figure 2. The PADM framework

1. Process Definition

A clear definition of the objectives, the boundaries and interfaces of the selected processes is
accomplished. Since defining objectives is a very difficult task, PADM recommends the use of
SSM in order to assist this task. Process’ main inputs and outputs, organisation’s departments
involved in process’ execution, customers supported by this process and the suppliers that
provide input to it are also defined. Process categorisation also takes place here. It aims at
identifying common characteristics between different processes leading to reuse opportunities.

Process definition is the basis for process evaluation.

2. Baseline Process Capture and Representation

A model of the current process is developed here, mainly for facilitating understanding, isolating
issues and identifying change opportunities.

PADM recommends the use of several different modelling techniques including:

 Person – centred process charts. This is a simple form used to codify job descriptions in
terms of task, tools, resources and products. In fact a person centred process chart provides a
‘structured notebook’ where the modeller records details from conversations with process
participants. It is mainly concerned with four questions:

1. What activities does the person perform?

2. What objects do these activities involve?

3. How do activities map to roles?

4. How can the objects be classified?

 IDEF0 models for high level process modelling.

 RADs for more detailed descriptions of a process.

 Object flow diagrams that are used to track the passage of objects through a process. Objects
here are defined as “anything that a generic user manipulates, uses or handles in the course of
work”. They are distinguished between resources that are used directly by the process, and
tools that facilitate the process

 Activity diagrams that are built up from observed activities. They capture the definition of
the activities, their ordering including iteration and concurrence, the process logic in terms
of conditions for ordering activities, interactions between persons and activity attributes, in
terms of time required, duration and resources used. It is not necessary all this information to
be represented in one diagram, since an activity diagram is built up according to need.

3. Process Evaluation

The baseline process is analysed and assessed. Deficiencies both in the technical and the social
subsystem of the organisation are identified. Some indicators of social problems are low job
satisfaction and poor motivation. In the technical system the methodology recognises two types
of weakness: ineffectiveness (customer requirements are not met) and inefficiency (wasteful use
of resources).
Identifying and measuring performance indicators is a key issue to process evaluation.
According to the methodology what is measured in a particular process depends on what is
important in the particular study. The assessment may be based on a number of process
properties such as:

Accuracy: "the degree to which the process output matches the intended result". This measure is
black-box meaning that the process is assessed as a whole.

Fidelity: "the faithfulness with which a defined process is followed". This is a white-box measure
meaning that it measures component parts of the process.

Precision: "the detail in which the process is prescribed". This measure is applied to a prescribed
process.

Scalability: " the size of the workload that the process can accommodate".

Metrics and simulation techniques are not used.

4. Target Process Design

This phase involves the design of the new process. Depending on particular circumstances either
an approach of incremental improvement or an approach of radical change may be adopted. In
both cases a model is developed. This model will be implemented in place of the current process.
The methodology recommends the use of RADs for the development of the model.

The Target Process Design phase takes also into consideration both technical and social systems.
Technical improvement aims at reducing complexity, minimising non-value adding activities and
eliminating or improving the control of variances. PADM gives emphasis to the identification of
opportunities for process improvement by exploiting I.T. support. The social perspective of
process improvement involves changes to jobs and the social structure in order to increase
motivation, to increase job satisfaction by giving people the skills, information and authority to
take grater responsibility for their work.

PADM aims at being a flexible, broad and adaptable methodological framework, in order to be
used across a wide spectrum of projects ranging from incremental process improvement
activities to broad-scale innovation projects involving top-down organisational change. The
framework is considered to operate in a strategic business context, meaning that it does not
involve either a phase of creating a business vision or a phase of learning how other
organisations’s similar processes are performed. Moreover, it does not contain a process
selection activity. Main emphasis is given to process modelling by trying to select the
appropriate modelling notation according to its role in BPR, the type of information it provides
and the process perspective that it can provide.

2.4 Object-oriented BPR

Today object-oriented technology is widely and successfully used for the development of software
systems. Currently many attempts are being made to use object-oriented technology for modelling
organisations and their processes. A good argument for using object orientation to model organisations is
that it models the company in a way that is very close to reality promoting in this way comprehensibility
and understanding. Moreover, if the same technique is used to model a business and the supporting
information system the transition between the two activities will be easy and distinct. Giving emphasis to
business, Jacobson defines an object as an occurrence containing information and behaviour that is
meaningful to the company and has to be described in its environment. Examples of such objects are
customer, invoice, etc. The object’s behaviour and information can be used by other objects, too. Work
tasks in an organisation can also be modeled as objects.

Recognising object orientation as an excellent way to clarify the inner workings of a company – its
processes, products, services, resources – and how those things depend on each other, Jacobson et al give
their methodology for business process re-engineering which is called object-oriented business
engineering and is based on use cases.

Reengineering work is performed within the framework for business development, and consists
mainly of two steps: reverse-engineering the existing organisation, where an abstract model of
the business and the process under study are constructed and forward-engineering the new
company, where the new process is designed. Figure 3 illustrates the major phases of Jacobson
approach to BPR. The arrows indicate how information flows from one phase to the other and to the
environment.

Business Development

Reversing the
existing business

Envisioning

Engineering the Installing the new

new business business
 Reengineering The reengineered
Directive Corporation

Figure 3. Jacobson methodology to BPR

According to Jacobson, a reengineering effort starts in response to a reengineering directive, which

describes in an abstract way current problems, the need for change and the expected results and which
then triggers an envisioning actitivity that produces a vision of the new organisation in terms of an
objective specification. Such a specification describes new or radically changed business processes and
their differences from current ones. Measurable properties and goals for each process, like cost, quality,
life cycle, lead time and customer satisfaction, as well as technology to support the processes are defined.
A set of future scenarios are given in an effort to predict the effect of changes. A list of risks critical
success factors are also given.

However, a vision can not be produced if the organisation's strategy is not known and the existing
business has not been understood. Moreover, customer demands and needs should be captured and
benchmarking can help in gaining experience from other successful organisations. This is accomplished
during the reversing the existing business activity (also called reverse engineering phase), which is
triggered by the envisioning activity. During reverse engineering, models of existing processes are
constructed and evaluated using measurable data. More specifically, two consistent organisational views
are described:

 the outside view which describes the company and its environment in terms of use cases and actors
involved and

 the inside view which describes describes the internal functional and hierarchical structure as well as
the processes and the resources used.

Thus, during reverse engineering two are the main activities: “use case modeling” and “object modeling”
which produce respectively the aforementioned outside and inside views. See

.
 Reverse Engineering

Use Case Object

Modeling Modeling

Model of the
existing business

Figure 4. The activities of the Reversing the existing business phase

During “use case modeling” a process model of the existing business is produced and described in terms
of actors and use cases. Actors can be customers, suppliers, partners or other parts of the organisation, etc.
Use case models describe complete courses of events with a measurable value for the customer. Use cases
are evaluated against certain metrics. Business processes that are the most critical for reengineering are
identified and given a priority.

During “object modeling” the organisation’s subsystems (functional units) are identified and
modeled in a leveled way. Use cases are described again here but now in terms of participating
subsystems. Objects carrying out the activities described in each use case are identified and their
interactions are modeled in a high level way. Existing use cases are measured to obtain metrics values
to be compared with corresponding metrics from the use cases to be designed for the new business.
Problems and limitations are identified and existing IT support and knowledge are identified. Thus, the
result is an evaluated object model of the existing business.

Use-case modeling and object modeling are dependent on each other. The work starts with the use-case
model and continues to object modeling when a stable use case model has been reached, but it is
necessary to work iteratively between the two models to obtain a complete, realistic, comprehensible,
informative and evaluated model of the current business. This model is then used in the as the basis in the
next phase which is the ‘engineering the new business’ also called forward engineering.
The goal of forward engineering is to produce a model for the new organisation. This is achieved by a
number of activities which are usually performed in parallel and produce:

 an outside view of the new organisation, which describes new or redesigned processes, focusing on
their interfaces to the environment. The outside view of the process is developed with the use of the
use-case model.

 inside views of the new organisation which are object-oriented models that have their own purpose.
Each process may be modeled according to the work tasks it includes and the way they are related,
or the products or sub-products it affects. These object-oriented models are rather abstract and are
also called ideal models since they describe a more ideal model of the organisation.

 a real model which contains the ideal models adapted to the restrictions found in the business and
captures the necessary object interactions for the realization of the use cases.

 IT support required for the processes in the new business.

The proposed new models are simulated and tested before their actual implementation. Thus, the result
is an evaluated and simulated model of the proposed organisation. Figure 5 depicts the various activities
performed during the forward engineering phase.
 Engineering the new business

Build an Build a
ideal real
Build a model model
use case Verify
model the new
business

Objective The reengineered

Specification Develop an information organisation
system

Figure 5. The activities of the Engineering the new business phase

The last phase is the implementation of the proposed changes during which the new (or redesigned)
business processes are introduced into the organisation. Existing processes need to run until the complete
installation of new ones without disturbing the environment in which they both operate.

1. BPR Methodology Comparison Framework

Most BPR methodologies share common phases and features. The above four popular BPR
methodologies described: Hammer/Champy methodology, Davenport’s methodology, Process Analysis
and Design Method (PADM), and Jacobson’s methodology, is a representative set of methodologies that
share common phases and features, but also differ in the way they approach reengineering. Their main
differences are in

 whether or not they recommend detail modeling and analysis of current situation

 whether they support incremental or radical changes to business processes and

 whether they suggest the study of successful organisations before embarking a BPR project.

Following, we present a methodology comparison framework, which comprises five major phases of a
BPR project:

1. Learning process phase

2. Create a business vision

3. Modeling and analyzing current processes

 4. Modeling and analyzing to be processes

5. Transition to a continuous process improvement effort

The objective of each phase, its value and the potential risks it entails, as well as well known techniques
used to perform each phase are described. Subsequently, each of the above-described methodologies is
placed within this comparison framework and some conclusions are discussed.

1. Learning process phase

Some BPR methodologies include a phase during which the reengineering team collects information
about customer needs, capabilities of competitors, the way successful organisations operate, and
technology capabilities. This is in fact a learning process through which the BPR team can estimate the
organisation’s position in the market, how customers will be more satisfied, learn how successful
competitor and non-competitor organisations operate. Benchmarking is a technique which can be very
useful during this phase. American Productivity and Quality centre defines benchmarking as “the process
of identifying, understanding, and adapting outstanding practices and processes from organisations
anywhere in the world to help your organisation improve its performance”.

Sometimes benchmarking is considered as the process of measuring best performance but benchmarking
is actually the process of learning lessons about how best performance is accomplished. A benchmarking
project may either be part of a reengineering or a continuous improvement project or stand-alone. In both
cases it is focused on identifying, studying, analysing and adapting best practices and implementing the
results. A best practice is in general a method that can be judged to be superior to other methods. For a
particular organisation a best practice is finally determined according to the particular circumstances, its
human and financial resources, IT infrastructure etc. After a best practice is defined, the BPR team is
based on it in order to evaluate existing work processes and subsequently design and evaluate new ones.
Jacobson’s methodology incorporates a learning process step. Hammer and Champy methodology
considers that observing customers and learning about their expectations is an essential part for defining
business vision, while benchmarking is useful as far as it does not prevent innovative thinking.

2. Create a business vision

Creating a vision is one of the most important tasks in a BPR effort, since it gives the effort’s boundaries
and a direction to go on. It is a difficult task because it should give as an output a clear statement of
organisation’s future state. In order to create effective visions, a learning process prior to creating a vision
step is needed. Learning about business, organisation’s customers needs and expectations, organisations’
associates and best practices of competitors and non-competitors, help in creating a realistic vision
without underestimating the opportunities given. Lack of a creating vision step may lead to lack of
orientation during a BPR effort and moreover in difficulties in designing new processes.

Hammer / Champy methodology as well as Davenport and Jacobson’s methodologies incorporate the
phase of creation of business vision. Although an envisioning activity is not formally part of PADM, the
methodology takes place in a strategic business context meaning.

3. Modelling and analysing current processes

There are contradictory aspects about modelling and analysing current processes. In favour of it are
researchers who believe that understanding and analysing current business processes is fundamental for a
successful BPR effort. Against it are researchers who stress that as-is modelling is a time consuming step,
which prevent creative thinking and going beyond old ways of doing busines. If continuous improvement
is the case then detail as-is modelling can help in identifying problems, bottlenecks and opportunities of
small changes that will improve performance. During a BPR effort though, as – is modelling should not
be detailed. It should rather help a BPR team to understand current process and not analysing it. Hammer
and Champy methodology incorporates a phase of understanding current processes. Detail modelling and
analysis of the current situation is not in the scope of this phase. The rest of the methodologies described
in this paper incorporate as-is modelling and analysis.

4. Modelling and analysing to be processes

This phase is supported by all the above mentioned methodologies. In fact it is a part of all BPR
methodologies. In order to describe and communicate the future state of a process, the “to-be” process is
visualised. In most cases there are more than one re-design options. These options are evaluated against
expected benefits and the strategic objectives of the organisation. The best of them is selected and is
further analysed to identify neglected problems. Simulation analysis can be very beneficial in this stage,
because it provides a way to simulate the operation of the future process and identify its strength and
potential problems.

5. Transition to a continuous process improvement effort

A BPR methodology that concludes to a continuous improvement model is very strong because it is
positioned within a process management system that enables the investigation, monitoring and refinement
of organisation processes. If this is the case then process improvement becomes an every day task and
both radical redesign and continuous process improvement becomes part of processes’ lifecycle.

The PADM supports the idea of process management and in fact is positioned within such a framework.

Table 2. Methodology Comparison

 Methodology Learning Create a Model and Model and Transition to
Process Business Analyse Analyse “to- CPI
Phase Vision Current be” Process
Process

Hammer/Champy 4 4 q 4 q

Davenport/Short q 4 4 4 q

PADM q q 4 4 4

Jacobson 4 4 4 4 q

1.5

Despite BPR’s popularity during the last decade that has peaked in 1994 [Davenport and Stoddard], today
the study of BPR strategies and the suggestion of BPR methodologies should be placed around the
concepts of knowledge management, change management, the learning organisation and the employee
empowerment. In this context BPR should not be considered as a panacea. BPR is only one of the several
process improvement approaches. It is fundamental that an organisation determines whether it is
appropriate to undertake a BPR effort having in mind the risk and the high rate of failure that comes with
it. Generally, small problems can be faced with less drastic means of achieving improved performance. If
the organisation faces serious problems then a well organised and managed BPR project can bring the
radical changes needed to overcome these problems and gain a competitive advantage.

It seems that in future BPR will be integrated into a broader process management approach. Most

organisations are oriented towards combining reengineering, continuous improvement, incremental

approaches and restructuring techniques [overview] into a more general approach of change

management. In this way, depending on the importance of the problems and their business vision.