Grover 1995

Journal of Management Information Systems
ISSN: 0742-1222 (Print) 1557-928X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/mmis20
The Implementation of Business Process

Reengineering
Varun Grover, Seung Ryul Jeong, William J. Kettinger & James T.C. Teng
To cite this article: Varun Grover, Seung Ryul Jeong, William J. Kettinger & James T.C. Teng
(1995) The Implementation of Business Process Reengineering, Journal of Management
Information Systems, 12:1, 109-144, DOI: 10.1080/07421222.1995.11518072
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07421222.1995.11518072
Published online: 11 Dec 2015.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 2
View related articles
Citing articles: 20 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=mmis20
Download by: [University of Pennsylvania] Date: 15 February 2016, At: 11:07

The Implementation of Business
Process Reengineering
VARUN GROVER, SEUNG RYUL JEONG,

WILLIAM 1. KETTINGER, AND JAMES T.C. TENG
V ARUN GROVER. See Guest Editors' Introduction.

Downloaded by [University of Pennsylvania] at 11:07 15 February 2016
SEUNG RYUL JEONG is a business process reengineering consultant with the Samsung
Group in Korea. He is completing a doctoral dissertation in process reengineering for
his Ph.D. degree in management information systems at the University of South
Carolina. Mr. Jeong's research interests are in strategic information management and
business process reengineering. He has published in the Journal of Management
Information Systems.
WILLIAM J. KEITINGER. See Guest Editors' Introduction.
JAMES T.C. TENG is Associate Professor at the College of Business Administration,

University of South Carolina. He earned his master of science degree in mathematics
from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champagne, and his Ph.D. in MIS from the
University of Minnesota. Dr. Teng's research and consulting interests are in the areas
of information management, decision support systems, and management of process
and organizational change. He has published over forty articles in journals such as
Journal of Management Information Systems, Decision Sciences, Information and
Management, California Management Review, INFOR, Data Base, EuropeanJournal
o/Information Systems, Information Systems Journal, IEEE Transactions in Engineer-
ing Management, and others. In 1992, he won the Outstanding Achievement Award
from the Institute of Decision Sciences.
ABSTRACT: As more organizations undertake business process reengineering (BPR),

issues in implementing BPR projects become a major concern. This field research
seeks empirically to explore the problems of implementing reengineering projects and
how the severity of these problems relates to BPR project success. Based on past
theories and research related to the implementation of organizational change as well
as field experience ofreengineering experts, a comprehensive list of sixty-four BPR
implementation problems was identified. The severity of each problem was then rated
by those who have participated in reengineering in 105 organizations. Analysis of the
results clearly demonstrates the central importance of change management in BPR
implementation success. Resolutions of problems in other areas such as technological
competence and project planning were also determined to be necessary, but not
sufficient, conditions for reengineering success. Further, problems that are more
directly related to the conduct of a project such as process delineation, project
management, and tactical planning were perceived as less difficult, yet highly related
to project success. This situation was also true for human resource problems such as
Journal o/Management ["formation Systems I Summer 1995. Vol. 12. No. I. pp. 109-144
110 GROVER, ET AL.
training personnel for the redesigned process. These findings suggest that reengineer-
ing project implementation is complex, involving many factors. To succeed, it is
essential that change be managed and that balanced attention be paid to all identified
factors, including those that are more contextual (e.g., management support and
technological competence) as well as factors that pertain directly to the conduct of the
project (e.g., project management and process delineation). As one of the first pieces
of empirical evidence based on a field study, this research emphasizes the importance
of addressing BPR implementation within the broader context of organizational
change in a complex sociotechnical environment.
KEY WORDS AND PHRASES: business process reengineering, change management,

implementation of innovations.
CORPORAnONS HAVE UNDERGONE AND CONTINUE TO UNDERGO fundamental change.

Whereas change in the I 980s concentrated on portfolio management and financial
restructuring, change in the 1990s focuses on "business processes." The impetus for
this change comes both reactively to competitive pressures and proactively to improve
corporate responsiveness. Goals of increased productivity, improved customer ser-
vice, reduced cost, compressed cycle time, and reduced defects are common. Knowl-
edge and expertise for business reengineering have initially emanated from innovative
consultants, serving as advisors to firms attempting fundamental change. These same
consultants have retrofitted methods, techniques, and tools from a variety of disci-
plines to conform to the requirements of business process reengineering (BPR)
practice. Adding to the phenomenon, numerous trade articles prescribe approaches to
reengineering based on proprietary expertise or anecdotal evidence.
Ironically, while the phenomenon of reengineering as "radical change" is already
evolving to a more tempered and, arguably, more realistic stance, there has been little
broad-based empirical research evaluating the success of past BPR implementations.
This is of concern, especially given the recent suggestion that a majority of reengin-
eering efforts fail [II]. Only recently are we beginning to see scholarly work consistent
with the early stages of inquiry into an emerging phenomenon, such as framework
development [31], identification of variables [30], exploration of relationships [28],
and case studies [10]. It is the overall intent ofthis exploratory study to identify patterns
related to the success of process reengineering efforts so that we might move doser
toward a generalizable theory of business process change. In doing so, the goals of
this research are primarily descriptive, serving the critical need to provide gener-
alizable insight on the collective experiences of organizations that have undergone
reengineering. This research draws from a sample of over 100 firms that have
conducted BPR projects to study the implementation of reengineering III organi-
zations.
The overarching theme of this study revolves around "implementation success," an
issue of central concern to both academics and practitioners. Clearly, process change
is complex and not easily accomplished, involving the manipulation of intera.ctive
IMPLEMENTAnON OF BPR III
relationships among such organizational subcomponents as management, people,

structure. technology, and rewards. Understanding impediments to process change
and the use of appropriate tactics to minimize these impediments should increase the
chances of reengineering implementation success. Drawing from the large body of
literature on implementation within innovation, sociotechnical design, planning, and
the management information systems fields, this study is focused on the folIowing
questions:
1. What are the problems related to implementation of business process reen-

gineering?
2. What is the relative severity of these problems?
3. How do these problems relate to the success of business process reengineer-
ing?
Answers to the study's questions should expose key problem areas and provide
practical insights in auditing the success or failure of reengineering implementation.
This study's presentation is organized in three major parts. The first part describes in
some depth the relevant literature that facilitates derivation of an appropriate problem
set. This is folIowed by a discussion of the methods for gathering and analyzing
empirical evidence. FinalIy, results of this study are presented and implications
discussed.
Implementation of Business Process Change: A Basis for Inquiry

BUSINESS REENGlNEERING IMPLEMENTATION CAN BE CHARACTERIZED as the imple-
mentation of deliberate and fundamental change in business processes to achieve
breakthrough improvements in performance [46]. Thus, BPR can be compared relative
to past administrative and technical organizational implementations. The broad organ-
izational focus and deliberate nature of BPR suggest a planned change in which a
successful BPR project requires preparation and deliberate action, support from
management, technical competence, and mitigation of resistance to the change.
Rarely, however, is there unlimited control over organizational and technological
consequences. Through implementation. this planned "organizational imperative"
may yield to a more emergent perspective involving complex indeterminate interac-
tions among people, technology, and the need for change [57]. Research shows that
implementation problems are in fact multidimensional, involving elements of both
planned and emergent change.
A rich literature base exists within the broad areas of organizational change,
innovation, organizational development, and sociotechnical design that generalIy deal
with planned implementation while taking into consideration the multidimensional
interactions of product and process change. In addition, since BPR is typicalIy enabled
by information technology (IT), extensive research within MIS planning and imple-
mentation also enhances the identification of potential problems or risk factors that
might inhibit reengineering implementation. Much of the MIS implementation re-
search has focused on factors like top management support, systems quality, user
112 GROVER, ET AL.
involvement, and the like, and their relationships with implementation success [48].
Given the lack of theoretical or empirical evidence on BPR, we first undertook a
review of the relevant research within the traditional domains of innovation and
implementation to identify previously recognized problems that might be pertinent to
BPR implementation. Next, relevant BPR practitioner literature was reviewed for
citations of specific problems experienced in actual BPR implementations. By com-
bining past scholarship with pertinent practical information from BPR practice, it was
the researchers' intent to derive the richest possible set of BPR implementation
problems. The derived problem set is then used in gathering empirical data from the
field.
Initiating and Motivating Business Process Change

The planned change approach was greatly influenced by Lewin's theory of change
[53]. Lewin created what are now almost universally recognized as the three sequential
phases of the change process: unfreezing, moving, and refreezing. The first stage,
unfreezing, creates a climate for change. It entails the disconfirmation of existing,
stable behavior patterns. The moving stage involves analysis, design, and installation.
The final stage, refreezing, institutionalizes the change. It reinforces the equilibrium
ofthe organization at a new level after the change has occurred. Other studies designed
to explain change usually extend Lewin's model by presenting change as a longer
series of stages, containing provisions for feedback and rediagnosis (e.g., [47]).
The planned change approach has been used widely in implementation studi<:s and
its validity has been tested by several researchers [3, 84]. Researchers have found that
successful projects tended to conform more closely to the prescriptions of the Lewin
model than did unsuccessful projects [26, 84]. The results also show that the stage
most strongly associated with overall success is refreezing. A major finding of the
planned change approach indicates that implementation success occurs whf:n (I)
commitment to change exists; (2) commitment to the project exists; and (3) the project
is well defined and plans are clearly specified [27]. One of the underlying principles
of the planned change model is the sharing and communication of information about
the change [15].
Augmenting this view, the innovation process literature describes change as having
three phases: initiation, adoption, and implementation [66]. The first stage, initiation,
involves scanning of organizational problems/opportunities. In the adoption stlge, a
decision is reached to invest the resources necessary to accommodate the imple:men-
tation effort. Implementation. the last stage, refers to development, installation, and
maintenance activities. Researchers adopting this perspective see implementation as
an organizational effort to diffuse an innovation within a user community [48].
Lawless [50] indicates that successful implementations were achieved when (I) the
implementor stayed involved until the innovation was actually being applied; (2) the
project was well planned and the model was brought up within the planned time fi'ame;
and (3) users were provided with good documentation. These results are analogous to
some prescriptions of the planned change model.
IMPLEMENTATION OF BPR 113
Managing Resistance to Change: The Value of Change Management

Many researchers in the field of organizational development (OD) have concentrated
on techniques to actively plan change to increase the effectiveness of the organization.
These techniques include organizational behavior modification, management by
objectives, job enrichment, team building, quality of work life, control cycle, and
sociotechnical systems approaches [15]. In addition, considerable attention has been
directed to how organizational changes can be planned and implemented successfully
[54]. This material is highly prescriptive and offers advice to managers about how to
plan and implement organizational changes. For example, Cummings and Huse [15]
organized their recommendations into five categories that lead to effective change
management: motivating change, creating a vision, developing political support,
managing the transition, and sustaining momentum.

Markus [56] explains resistance to change and implementation difficulties primarily
in terms of the conflict among participants for increased power. Based on Kling's [45]
work, she suggests three implicit theories to explain resistance: people-oriented
theory, system-oriented theory, and interaction theory. According to the interaction
theory, the best prescription for an implementation strategy will follow from a
thorough diagnosis of the organizational setting in which an innovation will be used.
One variant of the interaction theory is the political version. Here, resistance is
explained as a product of the interaction of system design features with the in-
traorganizational distribution of power. Based on Pfeffer's [65] work, it is suggested
that the political variant of the interaction theory is the most appropriate framework
for understanding MIS implementation when (I) organizational participants disagree
about the nature of the problem that a system is supposed to solve; (2) there is
uncertainty about whether a particular proposed system will solve the problem; and
(3) the power bases involved are highly valued and in short supply. Many prescriptive
studies suggest organizational strategies and mechanisms needed to deal with resis-
tance and the likelihood of such political game playing during implementation [29].
Sociotechnical Change: The Value of Human and

Technical Competence
The sociotechnical systems approach views a work system as an open system made
up of two interacting subsystem~he technical and the social. The outputs of work
systems are viewed as the result of interactions between these two systems. The goal
of the sociotechnical implementor is optimization of the entire work system [5, 6].
The sociotechnical design usually incorporates a major change in the way work is
done--emphasizing the changes to technical and human resources in light of altered
tasks or processes. Thus, in theory, the sociotechnical design approach shares many
common elements with the "new" approach called business process reengineering.
The technical system deals with the processes, tasks, and technology needed to
transform inputs to outputs [6]. According to Bemiker [5], "technical systems are sets
of tools (equipment, facilities and computers) and methods (procedures, programs and
114 GROVER. ET AL.
software) all designed as a system to accomplish the transformations required by an

organization" (p. 3). Here, tools are the artifacts created by people to improve their
capacity for work, while technology is the body of knowledge concerning the rela-
tionship of processes and machines used in the transformation process. Lederer and
Sethi [52], in their study of MIS planning problems, found several important factors
dealing with technical competence including a "database" factor that involves com-
petence in database development, data administration, and overall data archit,ecture,
and the "hardware" factor, which deals with the hardware plan and the data commu-
nications plan.
Bostrom and Heinen [6] found that limited focus on particular changes in task and
technology variables led MIS system designers to ignore the fact that "changes cause
more changes." To minimize implementation problems, Mumford and Weir [63]
recommend participation by those who are affected by a new system. Later studies
have shown that greater user involvement in the design and implementation of MIS
systems is related to implementation success [39]. In fact, Zemke [85] proposes that
human resource managers need to get more involved in MIS implementations through
a four-step sociotechnical process consisting of the systems scan, the technical
analysis, the social analysis, I and design recommendations.
Commitment for Change: The Value of Management Support

Throughout all these research streams, top-management support has been considered
necessary for the successful implementation. Innovation research suggests that man-
agerial attitude toward change is a critical factor in facilitating innovations [23]. This
research indicates that rigid hierarchical structures within the organization inhibit
change behavior, while communication mechanisms that facilitate dispersion of
information and ideas across functions promote innovativeness [16]. In MIS imple-
mentation research, consistent findings indicate the importance of top management
support [55]. For example, Jarvenpaa and Ives [40] highlighttop-management support
as encompassing both participation and involvement, and indicate that top-manage-
ment involvement is strongly associated with the firm's progressive use of technical
innovations.
Project Definition and Planning: The Value of Project Preparedne:ss

It has been generally accepted that implementation refers to the "ongoing process of
preparing the organization for the new system and introducing it in such a way as to
assure its successful use" [21, p. 593]. Implementation is typically an intricate and
complex process fraught with problems related to strategy alignment, project planning
and scheduling, and resource allocation [73]. In fact, several studies have shown that
some of the most successful innovative ideas came from external customers during
project planning, particularly in the case of product innovation [80].
In a series of related studies, Lederer and Mendelow [51] found corporate strat-
egy/systems alignment to be a major problem for senior executives, while at the project
IMPLEMENTATION OF BPR I 15
level, managers were more concerned about finding an appropriate methodology for
project planning. Boynton and Zmud [7] suggest that planning must consider the
organization's current culture. Lederer and Sethi [52] investigated problems that
inhibit successful implementation of strategic IT planning. They found that among the
most severe planning implementation problems are difficulty in securing top-manage-
ment commitment, a need for further analysis beyond strategic IT planning, and
inadequate resources for carrying out the plan.
BPR Implementation Problems: Drawing from Past Studies

All the literature streams above deal with aspects of planning and implementing
innovative product, process, and technology-based changes within an organizational

context. Reengineering implementation involves activities pertaining to initiation,
adoption, and institutionalization of business process change. Initiation efforts may
include development of vision. alignment of BPR efforts with corporate strategy,
identification ofreengineering opportunities, and IT enablers, and more. Adoption is
concerned with commitment and communication. Thus. it may involve senior
management's commitment to new values and to required resources. BPR also deals
with the communication efforts between top management and the employees to
address the need, scope, and commitment of the project. Here, careful preparation is
conducted in anticipation of organization-wide radical change. Institutionalization
efforts refer to the design, installation, and evaluation of new business processes and
new organizational structures. With this change view of reengineering implementa-
tion, it is clear that the literature sources discussed cover different stages of reengin-
eering implementation. The implementation literature is primarily concerned with
determinants of successful institutionalization/implementation. The strategic IT plan-
ning literature highlights initiation, the innovation literature mainly deals with adop-
tion and factors influencing the adoption of innovation, while the organization
development literature is concerned with the spectrum of managing organizational
change.
Clearly. BPR implementation research can draw from the many overlapping themes
and consistent findings of past research concerning the need for management support,
technical competence, project preparedness, and the management of change. These
four themes have recently gained attention from BPR researchers. In the appendix to
his book, Davenport [17] points future researchers toward relevant research streams
to better understand BPR implementation issues and problems. For instance, the
implementation factors research emphasizes top-management support, technological
sophistication, and the involvement of constituents in the process. Implementation
process research delineates the boundaries of implementation components and em-
phasizes the need for communicating about change. Implementation politics research
alerts us to potential nonrational behavior and the need to manage resistance to change.
MIS planning research indicates the importance oftop-down analysis, alignment of
systems with corporate goals. the need for broad participation, top-management
commitment, appropriate resource allocation, alignment with culture, and the need for
116 GROVER, ET AL.
methodology. Innovation research emphasizes organizational structure, particularly

integrative structures, technological resources, and favorable managerial attitude
toward change, as promoting more radical innovative behavior. And finally, organi-
zational development and sociotechnical approaches stress the importance of jointly
optimizing both the technical and the social (human) systems, taking into account the
culture and environment in which a work process activity occurs.
Methodology
IT IS NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE IN A NEW RESEARCH AREA to conduct studies that
correspond to the exploration and concept-development steps of the theory building
process (e.g., [70]). While some previous work has discussed factors of successful
implementations of business reengineering, these studies have been largely anecdotal

in nature or based on single organizations (e.g., [10,20, 36, 77]). This particular study,
however, adopted an exploratory and descriptive "survey" approach in order to
achieve additional richness and greater generalizability. This is in the exploratory vein
of Yin [83] which focuses on gathering data on the experiences of participants and
assessing the incidence of an outcome.
Research Design
Figure I outlines the research steps taken in this study. Following our review of past
research of innovation and implementation, a grouping of recognized implementation
problems were categorized within each of four research themes discussed: manage-
ment support, technological competence, change management, and project prepara-
tion. Given the lack of theoretical or empirical evidence on BPR, a careful review of
the popular literature was undertaken to identify specific problems experienced in
actual BPR implementations. A combined problem set of past cited and BPR-specific
implementation problems formed our derived implementation problem set. In g'~neral,
there was support in the reengineering literature for all the past problems cited. Further
validation of the problems and their categorization was achieved through face-to-face
interviews with managers who had participated in reengineering projects in four
organizations. Two of these were manufacturing companies in the southeastern area
and a third was a state government in a southeastern state. The other organization was
a midwestern area-based consulting firm specializing in business reenginl~ering.
Interviewees were given the initial version of the categorized problem list and
problems were added, deleted, or modified during the interviews. Based on these field
interviews, individual implementation problems were modified and new problems
were added based on their experience. These interviews alerted the researchers to the
presence of an additional categorical theme, related to the management of the: reen-
gineering projects. This new category, "project management problems" deals with
conducting the project (i.e., method, evaluation, control, etc.). Next, a Q-sort proce-
dure was conducted to further validate the problem categorizations. This resulted in a
division of the project preparedness category into "project planning" and "process
.•.•.•••. : •. 1· ••.....
Figure 1. Steps in the Research Methodology

118 GROVER. ET AL.
delineation." The final set of sixty-four problems is presented in each of the six
categories in Table I with supporting references from the reengineering literature.
This list was then used for data collection.
As can be seen from Table I. management support problems consist of potential
problems related to management's active understanding and support for reengineer-
ing. Technological competence problems relate to the technical infrastructure and
expertise within the organization. Process delineation problems are potential problems
with identification of appropriate parameters for the process involved. Project plan-
ning problems include potential problems with planning, setting up the team. and other
preparation for the reengineering project. Change management problems focus on
potential problems due to failure to manage change from the old process to the new
process. Project management problems deal with the actual conduct of the prc~ect.
Instrument Design
The unit of analysis for this research is a single reengineering project. To ensure that
the respondents correctly understood the meaning ofreengineering and did not mistake
TQM or MIS development projects as a BPR initiative, BPR was carefully defined at
the beginning of the questionnaire as a deliberate (planned) change, typically enabled
by information technologies (IT) in an attempt to redesign a business pro(:ess to
"achieve performance breakthroughs in quality, speed, customer service, cost, etc." It
was further pointed out that reengineering has often been contrasted with automation,
which mainly involves computerization of existing business processes with informa-
tion systems (MIS) applications. In addition, a separate sheet was included with
descriptions of classic reengineering cases. Furthermore, participants were asked to
select a recently concluded reengineering project in which they had participat,ed as a
team member. They were also asked to describe the project, the process being
reengineered, and the performance criteria used. This detailed characterization of the
respondents' efforts ascertained with a high level of assurance that the projects
attempted were indeed BPR initiatives.
The survey instrument was used to solicit the significance of each item in the
problem set to the project identified. Respondents were asked to rate the extent to
which they encountered each problem on a five-point scale where I = not a problem
and 5 = an extreme problem. Several studies have used similar scales [52, 59].
Reengineering success was measured multidimensionally using two different perspec-
tives: perceived level of success and goal fulfillment. These perspectives have been
commonly found in other fields. Evaluation research literature has taken two general
views concerning evaluation approaches: summative and formative [72]. Summative
evaluation determines whether the innovation has accomplished objectives while
formative evaluation assesses the quality ofthe innovation and related support. Similar
approaches have been used in both the general planning literature (e.g., [68]) and the
MIS literature. Hamilton and Chervany [34], for example, discuss two general
perspectives for evaluating MIS success or effectiveness. The goal-centered view
seeks to assess the degree of attainment in relation to the targets. The systems resource
Table I Potential Problems in Reengineering Implementation
Management support problems

Lack of top management support in Furey [25], Allen and Nafius [1], Shore
business reengineering efforts [74], Alter (2), Davenport and Short (19)
Managers' failure to support the new values Hammer and Champy (35), Davenport [17]
and beliefs demanded by the redesigned
processes
Lack of senior management leadership for Alter (2), Hall, Rosenthal, and Wade (33),
reengineering efforts Hammer and Champy [35]
Lack of business reengineering project Gulden and Reck (32), Hammer and
champion Champy(35)
Top management's insufficient Housel, Morris, and Westland [37]
understanding about business reengineering
Insufficient understanding about the goals Katzenbach and Smith [42]

of top management in relation to business
reengineering
Technological competence problems

Lack of expertise in IT in the organization Davidson (20), Housel, et al. (37)
Limited telecommunication infrastructure Davenport [17], Venkatraman (81)
Limited database infrastructure Davenport [17], Teng, Kettinger, and
Guha. (79)
Limited IS application infrastructure Davenport (17), Davidson (20)
Insufficient understanding about existing Cole, Clark, and Nemec [13], Davenport
data, applications, and IT across the (17)
organization
Failure to continually assess emerging IT Davenport [18], Davidson (20), Woolfe [82]
capabilities
Lack of IS participation and assistance in Davenport and Short [19], Caldwell [9]
the reengineering project
Failure to aggressively use IT enablers Davenport [17]
Process delineation problems

Scope of reengineered process was defined Caldwell(9), Hall, et al. (33), Morris and
inappropriately Brandon [62]
Failure to identify process owners who are Hammer and Champy [35]
responsible for entire business process
Difficulty in establishing performance Davenport [17], Hall, et al. [33]
improvements goals for the redesigned
process
Failure to include process owners Furey [25]
throughout the business reengineering effort
Difficult to forecast human resources, Furey [25]
financial and other resource requirements
Focusing only on evaluation criteria that are Kettinger, Guha, and Teng [43]
easily measured and quantifiable
Approach to reengineering was too radical Davenport (18)
Proposed changes to the process were Hammer and Champy (35), Hall, et al. (33)
too incremental, not radical enough
Project planning problems

Lack of strategic vision Harrison and Pratt (36), Schnitt (71),
Woolfe (82)
Lack of appropriate planning Davidson [20], Woolfe (82)
120 GROVER. ET AL.
Table 1 Continued
Lack of alignment between corporate Cole. et al. [13). Davenport and Short
planning and IT planning [19). Morris and Brandon [S2). Rigby [S9)
Top management's short-term view and Davidson [20)
quick fix mentality
Identification of candidate process for Davenport [17]. Schnitt [71)
reengineering not based on strategic planning
Failure to understand the customers' Allen and Nafius [1). Davenport [17).
viewpoints in the business reengineering Furey [25)
efforts
Absence of appropriate training for BPR Davenport [17]. Katzenbach and Smith
team members [42). Shore [74)
Failure to commit the required resources Cole. et al. [13). Morris and Brandon [S2).
(financial. human resources. etc.) to Hammer and Champy [35)
business reengineering efforts

Difficulty in finding business reengineering Caldwell [9). Pryor and Katz [S7]
team members who have required skills and
knowledge
Lack of authority given to reengineering Musser [S4)
team
Lack of experience in business Alter [2). Davenport [17)
reengineering
Lack of external consultant support for Allen and Nafius [1). Harrison and Pratt
business reengineering efforts [3S)
Difficulty in financially justifying benefits of Davidson [20)
business reengineering
Change-management problems
Failure to anticipate and plan for the Davidson [20). Hall. et al. [33). Champy
organizational resistance to change [11). Hammer and Champy [35). LaPlante
[49]. Woolfe [82]
Failure to consider politics of the business Hall. et al. [33). Meyer and Gardner I[SO)
reengineering efforts
Senior management's failure to commit to Hall. et al. [33). Hammer and Champy (35)
new values
Absence of management systems (e.g .. Gulden and Reck [32). Hammer and
incentive. training system) to cultivate Champy [35). Woolfe (82)
required values
Failure to consider existing organizational Davenport [17]. Davidson (20). Hammer
culture and Champy [35). Meyer and GardnE!r
[SO). Morris and Brandon [S2)
Difficulty in gaining crossfunctional Davenport and Short [19). Davidson [20)
cooperation
Need for managing change is not Alter [2). Sifonis [75)
recognized
Necessary changes in human resource Davenport [17). Schnitt [71)
policies for business reengineering
implementation were not made
Rigid hierarchical structures Cole. et al. [13). Davenport [17), Daven-
port and Short [19). Woolfe (82)
Line managers in the organization Davenport [17]. Housel. et al. [37]
unreceptive to innovation
Table I Continued
Unreasonable expectations attributed to Caldwell [9), Davenport [17], Rigby [69)
business reengineering as a solution for
all organizational problems
Failure to communicate reasons for change Buday [8), Hall, et al. [33), Morris and
to members of the organization Brandon [62), Davenport [17), CSC Index
[14), Champy [11)
Lack of appropriate employee compensation Davidson [20), Hammer and Champy [33),
incentives in the new process Schnitt [71)
Inadequate training for personnel affected Davenport [17), Davidson [20), Hall, et al.
by the redesigned process [35)
Not enough time to develop new skills for Davenport [17)
the redesigned process
Failure to build support from line managers Harrison and Pratt (36)
Project management problems

Failure to assess project performance in Davenport and Short (19), Hall, et al. (33)
the early stages of business reengineering
efforts to provide feedback
Reengineering team member's conflict Davenport [17), Woolfe [82]
between team responsibilities and functional
responsibilities
Too much emphasis on analyzing the Caldwell [9], Hammer and Champy [35]
existing process
Poor communication among reengineering Cole, et al. [13], Katzenbach and Smith
team members [42]
Difficulty in measuring reengineering project Hall, et al. [33]
performance
Ambiguity in job expectations for Katzenbach and Smith [42], Hammer and
reengineering team members Champy [35]
Lack of appropriate BPR methodology Davenport [17), Klein [44], Musser [64]
Difficulty in gaining control of reengineering Davidson [20]
efforts
Failure to effectively monitor progress of Cole, et al. [13]
project according to the schedule
The business reengineering effort takes too Hammer and Champy [351
much time
Uncertainty about the reengineering Shore [74]
project's time-frame
Poor communication between Katzenbach and Smith [42]
reengineering team members and other
organizational members
Difficulty in modeling and simulating the Davenport [18], Morris and Brandon [[62]
proposed change to the business process
view determines success by attainment of a normative state.

One approach for measuring reengineering success in this study is the "perceived
level of success." This variable, as DeLone and McLean [22] indicate, has been the
most widely used single measure of MIS success. In this research, respondents were
asked to answer one five-point-scale question about the perceived success level of
their reengineering project. The goal fulfillment perspective is another approach to
measuring success variables. This view can be characterized as objective compared
with the subjective nature of perceived success. A typical question in this view would
122 GROVER, ET AL.
be: to what extent is the goal(s) of reengineering fulfilled? Such comparison is

particularly meaningful as a success measure since reengineering has been conceptualized
as a deliberate change initiative aimed at "breakthrough" performance gains, and the
setting of performance improvement goals is central to the reengineering concept. Thus,
all of the possible goals of process performance must be considered. The present study
used five commonly emphasized goals: (1) cost reduction, (2) cycle-time reduction, (3)
customer satisfaction level increase, (4) worker productivity increase, and (5) defects
reduction [17, 25, 62]. In the questionnaire, for each of the above performance goals,
respondents indicated the planned level of performance improvement (before reengjneer-
ing) and the actual level of improvement achieved (after reengineering implementation).
They were also guided to leave the spaces blank if the presented goal was not applicable
to their reengineering projects. For the performance indicator, we compared the actual
level of improvement with the planned level, via the ratio.
Research Sample
To help ensure validity, Huber and Power [38] suggest, if a single key informant is to
be used, it should be a person most knowledgeable about the issue of interest. For the
present study, key informants were those who had actively participated in at least one
reengineering project. Eight hundred and fifty-three questionnaires were scnt to
members of the Planning Forum, which is the international business organization
focusing on strategic management and planning. Planning Forum members are se-
lected because of their high interest and involvement in BPR projects (possibly
because of the top-down strategic nature of most reengineering endeavors). Respon-
dents were sti1l asked to complete a part of the questionnaire and return it, even ifno
reengineering project had been completed by an organization. A total of 239 usable
responses were returned, resulting in a final response rate of 29.2 percent. This
response rate compares favorably with many mail surveys reported in the literature.
To ascertain whether the respondents reflect the sample frame of Planning Forum
members, nonresponse bias was assessed. Early respondents were compared with late
respondents across a number of key organizational characteristics--distribution of
industry type, number of employees, company annual sales, organization type, and so
on [24]. None of the chi-squares or (-tests were significant, providing support for
generalizability of the sample frame.
Profile of Responding Firms and Respondents

Of the 239 respondents, \05 (44 percent) had concluded at least one reengineering
project and were able to respond to the entire instrument. As shown in Table 2, almost
two-thirds ofthe responding companies were in either the manufacturing industry, the
financial sector, or the service industry. The remaining one-third of response:s are
involved in more than ten different industries. As the table reveals, the distribution of
the reengineering firms was similar to that of total responses. A majority of the
reengineering firms were in manufacturing and banking/finance/insurance (52.4 per-
Table 2 Respondents by Industry
Industry type Frequency Percent

(a) Overall respondents
Manufacturing 74 31.0
Banking/finance 21 8.8
Insurance 20 8.4
Distribution 16 6.7
Utility 14 5.9
Service 12 5.0
Information services 12 5.0
Health care 12 5.0
Marketing 7 2.9
Construction/engineering 7 2.9
Telecommunications 6 2.5
Transportation 5 2.1
Government 5 2.1
Retail 4 1.7
Food processing 3 1.3
Others 15 6.3
No answer 5 2.1
Total 239 100

(b) Reengineering firms
Manufacturing 30 28.6
Banking/finance 14 13.3
Insurance 11 10.5
Utility 7 6.7
Telecommunications 6 2.5
Information services 5 4.8
Distribution 4 3.8
Service 4 3.8
Construction/engineering 3 2.9
Government 3 2.9
Retail 3 2.9
Marketing 2 1.9
Food processing 2 1.9
Others 10 9.5
No answer 1 1.0
Total 105 100
cent). Another five industrial categories (utility, information services, telecommuni-

cations, distribution, and service) accounted for 21.6 percent of reengineering firms.
Organization size was measured using the number of employees. While the data on
number of employees overall show diverse groupings, the same data for the reengin-
eering firms indicate that larger companies are more likely to implement reengineering
projects. Among the 105 companies that have attempted reengineering, 25 have over
10,000 employees (23.8 percent), 17 have between 5,000 and 10,000 employees (16.2
percent), and 29 have 1,000 to 5,000 employees (27.6 percent).
'24 GROVER. ET AL.
Among the 105 business processes reengineered in the selected projects. tht: three
most popular target processes (see Table 3) were customer service (13), product
development (13), and order management (10). About one-third of the \05 rel~ngin
eering firms redesigned these processes. Among these three processes, two (customer
service and order management process) were customer-interfaciqg processes that
extended into the customer organization. This result is not surprising because it has
been widely recognized that processes at the customer interface are perhaps tht: most
critical to an organization's success--they are essential to a firm's cash flow and
customer satisfaction. Processes included in the survey that appeared to be next
popular were business planning and analysis (5.7 percent), financial systems (4.8
percent), and accounting processes (3.8 percent). A number of other processes were
also reengineered (e.g., service delivery [2.9 percent], distribution [2.9 percent], and
purchasing [2.9 percent]). This seems to indicate that more organizations am now
focusing on processes at the core of their business performance [41]. This observation
received some support from Table 3, which shows industrial categories for each
redesigned business process. Manufacturing, banking/finance, and insurance firms
reengineered a variety of processes across the spectrum, even though firms put more
emphasis on several industry-specific processes (e.g., product development and
order-management processes for manufacturing firms; financial systems and loan
management processes for banking/finance firms; and claims processing and new
business underwriting processes for insurance firms). In general, among the thref! most
popular target processes shown in Table 3, customer service processes appear to be
common across most industries.
Results
THE LIST OF SIXTY-FOUR DERIVED PROBLEMS WAS USED in the survey instrumo;:nt to
assess their relative severity as perceived by BPR project participants. The results are
discussed below.
Relative Severity of Reengineering Implementation Problems

To appreciate the relative severity of the various BPR implementation problems, the
sixty-four potential problems are ranked according to their "severity score"-that is,
the percentage of respondents who rated them as either a major problem or an extreme
problem (i.e., 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale).' The resulting ranking, as shown in Table 4,
indicates that 31.8 percent of the respondents considered "need for managing change
is not recognized" a major or an extreme problem, putting this at the top of the ilist in
terms of severity. The next most severe problems were second, top management's
short-term view and quick-fix mentality; third, rigid hierarchical structures in the
organization; fourth, line managers in the organization unreceptive to innovation; and
fifth, failure to anticipate and plan for the organizational resistance to change.
As Table 4 demonstrates, four of the top five most severe implementation problems
concern change management. A large proportion (over 27 percent) of the respondents
ustrial Categories of Redesigned Processes
Industry
BF DS HC IN IS MF MK PB RT SV TC UT Other Tota
ce 2 1 3 2 2 13
pment 3 6 1 2 13
ment 5 1 2 10
ng & analysis 4 6
ms 4 1 5
ess 4
3
3
2 3
2 3
nderwriting 2 3
nce 3 3
2 2
g process 2
ent 2 2
ng 2 2
2
ning & scheduling 2 2
essing 2
16
6
105
nking/finance; IS = information services; RT =retail; DS =distribution; MF =manufacturing; SV =services; HC = health

keting; TC =telecommunications; IN =insurance; PB =publishing; UT = utility.
126 GROVER, ET AL.
Table 4 Severity of Reengineering Implementation Problems
Rank Score* Problem Category**
1 31.8 Need for managing change is not recognized eM

2 31.7 Top management's short-term view and quick fix mentality PP
3 30.1 Rigid hierarchical structures in the organization eM
4 28.8 Line managers in the organization unreceptive to innovation eM
5 27.7 Failure to anticipate and plan for the organizational resis- eM
tance to change
6 25.3 Insufficient understanding about existing data, applica- Te
tions, and IT across the organization
7 23.3 Lack of alignment between corporate planning and IT plan- PP
ning
7 23.3 Failure to consider politics of the business reengineering ef- eM
forts
9 23.1 The business reengineering efforts took too much time PM
10 23.0 Failure to build support from line managers eM
11 22.2 Limited database infrastructure Te
12 22.1 Lack of strategic vision PP
12 22.1 Difficulty in establishing performance improvements goal PD
for the redesigned process
12 22.1 Uncertainty about business reengineering project time- PM
frame
12 22.1 Unreasonable expectations attributed to business reengin- CM
eering as a solution for all organizational problems
16 21.7 Managers' failure to support the new values and beliefs de- MS
manded by the redesigned process
17 21.1 Difficulty in measuring reengineering project performance PM
18 20.6 Absence of management systems (e.g., incentive, train- CM
ing system) to cultivate required values
19 20.2 Lack of experience in business reengineering PP
20 20.1 Difficulty in gaining cross-functional cooperation CM
21 19.5 Lack of expertise in IT in the organization TC
22 18.6 Limited IS application portfolio TC
23 18.5 Senior management's failure to commit to new values CM
24 18.2 Insufficient understanding about the goals of top manage- MS
ment in relation to business reengineering
25 17.6 Failure to commit the required resources (financial, human POP
resources, etc.) to business reengineering efforts
26 16.8 Lack of appropriate employee compensation incentives in CM
the new process
27 16.6 Failure to aggressively use IT enablers TC
28 16.4 A reengineering team member's conflict between team re- PM
sponsibilities and functional responsibilities
29 16.3 Failure to identify process owners who are responsible for PD
the entire business process
29 16.3 Lack of senior management leadership for reengineering MS
efforts
29 16.3 Failure to communicate reasons for change to members of CM
the organization
29 16.3 Lack of authority given to reengineering team PP
33 16.9 Inadequate training for personnel affected by the rede- CM
signed process
34 15.9 Necessary changes in human resource policies for busi- CM
ness reengineering implementation were not made
IMPLEMENT AnON OF BPR 127
Table 4 Continued
Rank Score* Problem Category**
35 15.6 Poor communication between reengineering team mem- PM
bers and other organizational members
36 15.4 Top management's insufficient understanding about bus i- MS
ness reengineering
36 15.4 Failure to consider existing organizational culture CM
38 14.5 Failure to continually assess emerging IT capabilities TC
39 13.6 Difficult to forecast human resources, financial and other PD
resource requirements
39 13.6 Difficulty in financially justifying benefits of business reen- PP
gineering
41 13.5 Lack of IS participation and assistance in the reengineer- TC
ing project
41 13.5 Lack of top management support in business reengineer- MS
ing efforts
43 12.9 Focusing only on evaluation criteria that are easily mea- PD
sured and quantifiable
44 12.6 Identification of candidate process for reengineering not PP
based on strategic planning
45 12.5 Ambiguity in job expectations for reengineering team mem- PM
bers
45 12.5 Difficulty in finding business reengineering team members PP
who have the required skills and knowledge
47 11.6 Failure to effectively monitor progress of project according PM
to the schedule
47 11.6 Limited telecommunication infrastructure TC
49 10.7 Failure to include process owners throughout the business PD
reengineering effort
50 10.6 Scope of reengineered process was defined inappropriately PD
50 10.6 Proposed changes to the process were too incremental, PD
not radical enough
50 10.6 Lack of appropriate planning PP
53 9.7 Difficulty in gaining control of reengineering efforts PM
54 8.9 Failure to assess project performance in the early stages PM
of business reengineering efforts to provide feedback
54 8.9 Difficulty in modeling and simulating the proposed changes PM
to the business process
56 8.7 Absence of appropriate training for BPR team members PP
56 8.7 Lack of business reengineering project champion MS
58 8.6 Too much emphasis on analyzing the existing process PM
59 7.8 Failure to understand the customers' viewpoints in the busi- PP
ness reengineering efforts
60 7.0 Not enough time to develop new skills for the redeSigned CM
process
61 5.8 Lack of appropriate business reengineering methodology PM
62 4.8 Poor communication among business reengineering team PM
members
63 3.9 Lack of external consultant support for business reengin- PP
eering efforts
64 2.9 The approach to reengineering was too radical PD
* Severity score for a problem represents the percentage of respondents who rated the problem as ei-
ther major (4) or extreme (5). ** CM: change management; MS =management support; PD =process
delineation; PM =project management; PP =project planning; TC =technological competence.
128 GROVER. ET AL.
regarded these four items as major or extreme problems in their efforts to implement
reengineering. In fact, six of the top ten problems belong to the change-management
category, clearly indicating that change-management problems are perceived as very
severe in conducting reengineering projects. Problems such as communicating reen-
gineering rationale to employees, politics of reengineering efforts, and commitment
to new values, which have been suggested by reengineering experts and researchers
[10, 14] as significant BPR issues, were among the change-management problems
identified in this study. This finding reveals and reaffirms the fundamental na.ture of
reengineering which typically entails multidimensional organizational changes in-
volving roles/responsibilities, performance measures/incentives, shared valm:s (cul-
ture), organizational structure, and skill requirements, in addition to information
technology applications. According to Hall et al. [33], these changes constitute the
"depth" dimension of change required for process reengineering. The difficulty in

managing these changes is further compounded by the "breadth" of reengineering
projects, which often involve processes that span different functional boundaries. To
add insight into the profile of the relative severity of these sixty-four problems, an
average severity score (based on the percentage of respondents rating the problems as
major or extreme) was calculated for each of the six categories (right column of Table
4). The average severity scores in descending order of magnitude are: (I) change
management (20.84 percent); (2) technological competence (17.73 percent); (3)
management support (15.63 percent); (4) project planning (15.45 percent); (5) project
management (13.02 percent); and (6) process delineation (12.46 percent). It is inter-
esting that, in terms of macro-micro distinctions, the above ran kings generally proceed
from macro/contextual problems to more micro/project-specific problems.
Further Refinement of Problem Categories

As described earlier, the six categories of reengineering implementation problems
were systematically developed prior to data collection via conceptual analysis as well
as field work. Before attempting to address the third research question regarding the
relationships between problems and reengineering success, it was necessary to ensure
homogeneity for each grouping and there is no "hidden" grouping of problems within
a category. Surfacing these subcategories would enhance the richness in interpreting
and discussing the results. For each of the six categories, principal component analysis
was performed on the items. There were three general rules in determining factors in
the analysis. First, the "eigenvalue greater than one" rule was used as the criterion to
determine the number of factors. Second, the scree test was utilized to confirm the
results of the eigenvalue rule. Third, loadings greater than 0.40 (in absolute value)
were used in deciding whether an item was considered part ofa factor, to enhance the
chances of cleanly separating items into conceptually sound factors [12].
The results of this analysis are presented in Table 5. As can be seen, the six items
making up the management support problems category load onto one factor. For the
technological competence problems category, a one-factor structure emerged with one
item dropping out. A single factor was also found from the eight items of the process
delineation problems, with two items being dropped. For the project planning cate-
gory, two factors emerged, with four items dropped. These two factors can be
interpreted as strategic planning problems and tactical planning problems. With six
items being dropped, the change-management problems category was found to contain
two factors, and they can be interpreted as change-management problems and human
resource problems. The final category, project management problems, was split into
two factors while dropping three items in the process. These are labeled project
management problems and time frame problems. Thus, results of principle component
analysis refined the original six-category classification and extended it to a nine-cat-
egory structure. Cronbach' s alphas were calculated for each category, with all coeffi-
cients exceeding 0.68, indicating satisfactory internal consistency? Thus, these
refined nine categories were used as the basis for data analysis to address the third
research question: How does BPR problem relate to BPR project success?
The average severity scores for each of the final nine problem categories are
indicated in Table 5. As our preliminary analysis suggests, the two most severe
categories are change management (mean score = 21.9) and technological competence
(mean score = 18.2). These are followed by strategic planning (17.2), time frame
(16.4), management support ( 15.6), human resource (14.9), process delineation (14.0),
project management (J 1.7), and tactical planning (10.3). The sociotechnical nature of
reengineering is vividly and "literally" demonstrated by the two most severe types of
implementation problems: change management and technology competence. How-
ever, the order is of utmost significance here: social first and technology second.
Information technology is an important enabler, but the reengineering project itself
involves significant changes in areas such as roles and responsibilities, organizational
structure, and shared values, and none of these changes can take place in an orderly
fashion without careful planning and conscientious efforts to communicate with,
educate, and motivate the affected employees.
The third most severe source of difficulty is strategic planning problems, which
pertain to issues such as strategic vision and the identification of candidate processes
based on corporate strategy. Similar problems have been discussed in the context of
MIS planning [52]. In the implementation of BPR, an in-depth study of the strategy-
reengineering link has been attempted by Mitchell and Zmud [61]. It is interesting that
the fifth and the eighth most severe types of problems, management support and
project management, are also those that have been discussed and researched inten-
sively over the years in the context of MIS implementation [27, 55]. Our results,
therefore, show that findings from previous MIS implementation research are stiII
valid for reengineering. However, these problems were regarded as less severe when
compared with the difficulties felt by the respondents in managing the tumultuous
changes in transforming the social system in reengineering business processes. There-
fore, the results suggest that, while reengineering and traditional MIS projects have
similar problems in planning and management support [59], problems related to
culture and organization run much deeper in the case ofBPR. Compared with typical
MIS automation projects, BPR projects involve much more messy problems that are
directly related to the need to change existing process and structure in the organization.
130 GROVER, ET AL.
Table 5 Finalized Categories of Reengineering Implementation Problems
Factor and items Loadings
( 1) Factors for management support problems

Factor 1. Management support problems (mean severity score = 15.6%)
Eigenvalue =3.80; percent of variance explained =63.3) (alpha =0.8810)
Lack of senior management leadership for reengineering efforts 0.920
Lack of top management support in business reengineering efforts 0.848
Top management's insufficient understanding about business reen- 0.807
gineering
Managers' failure to support the new values and beliefs demanded 0.774
by the designed process
Insufficient understanding about the goals of top management in ra- 0.776
lation to business engineering

Lack of BPR project champion 0.688
(2) Factors for technological competence problems

Factor 1. Technological competence problems (mean severity score = 18.2%)
(Eigenvalue =4.12; percent of variance explained =51.6) (alpha =0.8589)
Limited IS application portfolio 0.865
Lack of expertise in IT in the organization 0.810
Insufficient understanding about existing data applications, and IT 0.772
across the organization
Lack of IS participation and assistance in the reengineering project 0.739
Limited database infrastructure 0.706
Failure to aggressively use IT enablers 0.575
Limited telecommunication infrastructure 0.452
(3) Factors for process delineation problems

Factor 1. Process delineation problems (mean severity score = 14.0%)
Difficulty in establishing performance improvement goals for the re- 0.786
designed process
Failure to include process owners throughout the BPR efforts 0.726
Failure to identify process owners who are responsible for the en- 0.689
tire business process
Scope of the reengineered process was define inappropriately 0.643
Proposed changes to the process were too incremental, not radi- 0.536
cal enough
Difficult to forecast human resources, financial and other resource 0.490
requirements
(4) Factors for project planning problems

Factor 1. Strategic planning problems (mean severity score = 17.2%)
Lack of alignment between corporate planning and IT planning 0.829

Lack of appropriate planning 0.782
Identification of candidate process for reengineering not based on 0.778
strategic planning
Lack of strategic vision 0.741
IMPLEMENT AnON OF BPR 131
Table 5 Continued
Factor and items

Factor 2. Tactical planning problems (mean severity score = 10.3%)
(Eigenvalue = 1.23: percent of variance explained = 13.7) (alpha = 0.6986)
Failure to commit the required resources (financial, human re- 0.746
sources, etc.) to BPR efforts
Difficulty in financially justifying benefits of BPR 0.719
Absence of appropriate training for BPR team members 0.635
Failure to understand customers' viewpoints in the BPR efforts 0.583
Lack of external consultant support for BPR efforts 0.553
(5) Factors for change-management problems

Factor 1. Change-management problems (mean severity score =21.9%)

(Eigenvalue = 4.58; percent of variance explained =45.8) (alpha = 0.8695)
Failure to anticipate and plan for the organizational resistance to 0.809
change
Failure to consider politics of the business reengineering efforts 0.792
Need for managing change is not recognized 0.789
Failure to communicate reasons for change to members of the or- 0.766
ganization
Necessary changes in human resource policies for BPR implemen- 0.627
tation were not made
Difficulty in gaining crossfunctional cooperation 0.579
Senior management's failure to commit to new values 0.565
Factor 2. Human resource problems (mean severity score = 14.9%)
(Eigenvalue = 1.21; percent of variance explained = 12.1) (alpha = 0.6873)
Inadequate training for personnel affected by the redesigned process 0.786
Not enough time to develop new skills for the redesigned process 0.771
Absence of management systems (e.g., incentive, training sys- 0.653
tern) to cultivate required values
(6) Factors for project management problems

Factor 1. Project management problems (mean severity score = 11. 7%)
Eigenvalue = 4.21; percent of variance explained =42.1) (alpha =0.8028)
Poor communication between BPR team members and other or- 0.749
ganizational members
Difficulty in gaining control of reengineering efforts 0.584
Lack of appropriate BPR methodology 0.676
Difficulty in modeling and simulating the proposed changes to the 0.602
business process
Failure to assess project performance in the early stage of BPR ef- 0.582
forts to provide feedback
Difficulty in measuring reengineering project performance 0.670
Factor 2. Time frame problems (mean severity score = 16.4%)
(Eigenvalue = 1.09; percent of variance explained = 10.9) (alpha =0.7208)
The BPR effort took too much time 0.818
Uncertainty about BPR project time frame 0.783
Too much emphasis on analyzing the existing process 0.579
Failure to effectively monitor progress of project according to the 0.539
schedule
132 GROVER, ET AL.
Relating Reengineering Problem Severity and Project Success
To assess the relationship between various sources of implementation difficulties and

reengineering success, the average score for each of the nine categories is cOlTelated
to the success measures. For overall success, the five-point scale described earlier was
used. For the other five specific success measures (such as cost, cycle time, and defects
reduction), we seek to capture the extent to which planned performance goals have
been realized. This was represented by the ratio between the actual performance gain
and planned performance gain.
The results of the correlational analysis are shown in Table 6. As expected, all
correlation coefficients are negative, as more success should be associated with less
problems. The nine problem categories are listed in descending order ofthe magnitude
of their correlation with overall success. Coefficients in this column are all significant.
In fact, all but one are highly significant at p < 0.0 I. In addition, the magnitude! of the
correlations is large, with six of the nine exceeding 0.30. While this is somewhat
expected, the ranking pattern contains some interesting results and offers fresh
insights. Human resource problems, which were originally categorized as part of the
change-management category, are very highly negatively correlated (r =~.5 I) with
perceived BPR success. While change management (see the nine-category classifica-
tion in Table 5) concerns the organizational context for change such as politics,
communication, commitment and resistance to change at the policy level, human
resource problems focus on specific tasks pertaining to people within the project
domain itself. These tasks include training personnel affected by the redesigned
process, developing new skills needed by the new process, and setting up management
systems to cultivate required values. This result suggests that to the extent that these
critical human resource arrangements are not made in the actual conduct of the project,
the success of the project may be in jeopardy. This finding once again demonstrates
the importance of the social dimension of BPR initiatives. Failure to prepare the
affected employees for the new "world order" of BPR and to cultivate new values that
sustain the new order can lead to a detrimental project outcome.
The ranking of correlations for overall success contains several surprises, First,
technology competence, regarded as the second most severe type of problems,
correlated the least with overall success. Note that the magnitude of the correlation (r
= ~.19) is substantially lower than that for human resource problems (r = --D.51).
Thus, reengineering project members may experience a great deal of difficllllty in
obtaining IT-related skills and infrastructure, but the lack of such problems will by no
means guarantee project success. Apparently, taking good care of the required
technology may be necessary but not sufficient for the eventual success of reengin-
eering. A number of other rankings of problem categories also offer insights into
reengineering implementation. Project management, for example, is highly con'elated
with success (r = - 0.42), but it is not perceived to be as difficult to handle as other
problems such as technological competence and strategic planning. In the case of
project management, this illustrates how project outcome can be directly influenced
by the way the project is managed.
elations between Problem Categories and Reengineering Success+
Overall Cost Cycle-time Customer satisfac- Productivity Defects

success reduction reduction tion increase increase reduction
y (N=95) (N=49) (N=55) (N= 38) (N= 46) (N=25)
-0.51*** (1) (H) -0.47*** (1) (H) -0.30** (3) (H) -0.40** (1) (H) -0.43*** (2) (H) -0.49** (2) (H)
ment -0.42*** (2) (H) -0.35** (5) (H) -0.33** (2) (H) -0.36** (3) (H) -0.33** (4) (H) -0.48** (3) (H)
pport -0.36*** (3) (H) -0.29** (8) (L) -0.10 (L) -0.25 (L) -0.25* (7) (L) -0.34* (9) (L)
ment -0.35*** (4) (H) -0.43*** (3) (H) -0.34** (1) (H) -0.35** (4) (H) -0.49*** (1) (H) -0.39* (8) (L)
-0.33*** (5) (H) -0.37*** (4) (H) -0.25* (5) (H) -0.38** (2) (H) -0.33** (4) (H) -0.43* (7) (L)
on -0.30*** (6) (L) -0.44*** (2) (H) -0.29** (4) (H) -0.34** (5) (H) -0.43*** (2) (H) -0.45** (5) (H)
g -0.28*** (7) (L) -0.32** (6) (L) -0.18 (L) -0.31* (6) (L) -0.33** (4) (H) -0.45** (5) (H)
-0.27*** (8) (L) -0.27* (9) (L) -0.19 (L) -0.20 (L) -0.21 (L) -0.47** (4) (H)
-0.19* (9) (L) -0.30** (7) (L) -0.12 (L) -0.30* (7) (L) -0.22 (L) -0.51***(1) (H)
on -0.33 -0.36 -0.23 -0.32 -0.34 -0.45
is based on a 5-point scale. All other success measures are achieved/planned perfonnance level ratios.
theses following the coefficients are rankings for significant correlations based on magnitude.
the five highest correlations are classified H (high), the rest L (low) (there are six H's for the last two columns due to identi-
e 0.10 level; ** significant at the 0.05 level; *** significant at the 0.0\ level.
134 GROVER, ET AL.
Thus, respondents in our sample may not feel tremendously challenged by such
project management tasks as assessing project performance, using an appropriate
reengineering methodology, and modeling proposed process changes, but carefully
resolving problems in this area is critical to reengineering success. In a simila.r vein,
process delineation (picking the right process) may not be so difficult to do (ranked
low in problem severity), but its relationship with project success is considerable (r =
-0.30), ahead of strategic planning, time frame, and technological competence prob-
lems. This supports past studies that suggest that selecting correct core processes is
key to BPR success [33,41]. Overall. an interesting result is how several issues ofless
perceived problem severity, such as project management and process delineation, have
shown a strong relationship to reengineering success. On the other hand, technoiiogical
competence was regarded as a very severe source of difficulty, yet it correlates the
least with overall project success. These patterns of findings concerning problem
severity and the relationships between problems and BPR success are discussed later.
Problem Severity and Specific Performance Goals

In Table 6, reengineering success is also examined with respect to specific perfor-
mance goals such as cost and cycle-time reduction. For these measures, rankings of
correlations are assigned only to those that are statistically significant. In an attempt
to explore patterns, the correlations for each column in Table 6 were split atthe median,
and the top five classified as H (high) as opposed to the bottom four which were
designated L (low).
Two of these columns (cost and defects reduction) contain correlations that are all
significant. Furthermore, average correlation for these two columns are the highest
(-0.36 and -0.45). It may be that these two performance goals are more concn:te and
easier to measure. Another possibility is that projects adopting these types of goals
tend to pay specific attention to particular aspects of the projects. For example,
information technology may be the primary weapon used to reduce defects, and this
may explain the high correlation between technology competence and defects reduc-
tion performance (r = -0.51). In fact, the H-L classifications for defects reduction
were highly inconsistent with the overall success. The H classifications were thl! same
for the top two problems--human resource and project management--but classifica-
tions were reversed for all other problems. In interpreting these results, it is important
to note that the sample size for defects reduction is only twenty-five and the :results
may not be as generalizable. However, for measures like customer satisfaction, which
is more general and broad-based than defects, change-management and human re-
source problems are the top two categories in terms of correlational strength, while
technology competence has a lower correlation that is not significant. In fact, the five
H's overlap in most cases with those of overall success.
A somewhat similar patterns can also be detected for cycle time, cost reduction, and
productivity-namely, H, H, L, H, H, H for the first six problems, followed by all L's
for the rest. 3 Thus, with the exception of defects reduction, which may involve
specialized efforts or expertise. the various performance goals exhibit similar
patterns of correlational strength to problems when compared with the overaIl success
measure. This generaIly consistent pattern improves confidence in the overaIl success
measure.
If we examine the results in Table 6 across the various columns, a relatively high
degree ofconsistency can be observed for some categories, while less consistency was
associated with others. Human resource problems, for example, are very highly
correlated to all the performance goals. Project management problems are also highly
related to various goals. Similarly, for the three problem categories with the least
correlation to overaIl success (strategic planning, time frame, and technological
competence), relationships to other performance measures are also relatively weak. It
is interesting that, except for defects reduction, the potential influence of change
management appears to be strong across all measures. For productivity and cycle time,
the relationship is the strongest. Cycle-time reduction and productivity increases are
certainly closely related goals, and both might require drastic changes in employees'
current roles and responsibilities. Further, changes to existing procedures and struc-
tures are typicaIly needed in order to achieve productivity improvement. In many
cases, unpleasant moves such as reduction of work force must be implemented to cut
costs and raise productivity [1 I]. These steps will not succeed without concerted and
conscientious change management for the affected organizational members.
Tactical project-planning problems are also related quite strongly to the various
performance goals. For example, for customer satisfaction, it is ranked the second
most significant problem category. This may be due to the difficulty that internal
tactical planners have in understanding customers' viewpoints. Tactical planning
issues such as acquiring necessary resources, training project team members and
financially justifying the project, are of immediate relevance to the reengineering
endeavor and failure to carry them out appropriately will be detrimental to project
success. Less consistency was found for two problem categories, namely, management
support and process delineation. Management support was ranked high in correlational
strength for overall success, but has relatively low correlation (L) with all other
performance goals. It appears that management support is a general contextual factor
with considerable potential influence on overall reengineering project success. For
specific performance goals, this influence may operate in an indirect manner. Some
inconsistency was also observed for process delineation. For overalI success, the
relationship was low (L). For all other measures, the correlations were relatively high
(H). This is especially true for cost reduction and productivity increase (both ranked
second). This may be traced to the possible impact of the scope of reengineered
processes, which may be defined either narrowly within a function or broadly across
many functions. According to the preliminary research reported by HalI et al. [33],
reengineering projects aimed at crossfunctional processes can achieve significantly
better results with respect to a number of performance goals including cost. Further
research is needed to examine the impact of process definition and delineation on
reengineering performance outcomes.
136 GROVER. ET AL.
Discussion
THE STUDY RESULTS PROVIDE IMPORTANT INSIGHTS into our research question con-
cerning the relative severity of the various reengineering implementations problems
and how these problems are related to the success of reengineering projects. Even
more insight, however, can be derived from our results if we attempt a broad
examination of the overall patterns of results. These patterns become more interesting
when we consider both problem severity and its relationship to success together. For
example, issues ofless severity such as project management and process delineation
have shown strong relationship to reengineering success. Technological competence,
by contrast, was regarded as a very severe source of difficulty, yet it correlates the
least with overall project success. To explore these patterns, both severity and its
relationship to success are included in Table 7. Since the research objective is to

explore general patterns, rather than to strive for precision in analysis. statistical
measures are designated as either H (for the top five scores) or L (for the bottom four
scores). This classification scheme should help us develop an overall portrayal of the
various problem categories, as indicated in the last column of the table.
Change management stands out as the most severe source of difficulty in reengin-
eering. It also has a relatively high correlation (negative) with most success measures.
The overall pattern is designated "HS-HC" (high severity-high correlation). This
pattern clearly indicates that change management occupies the center stage in business
process reengineering implementation. The daunting tasks in breaking the organiza-
tional status quo and introducing new practices, new values, and new structures must
have been overwhelming for most reengineering team members, and our study results
confirm this. The good news is that efforts devoted to solving these difficult change
management problems should "payoff' in terms of reengineering project success. The
warning is, however, equally striking-inability to manage organizational change in
reengineering will most likely lead to project failure!
For the other eight categories of implementation problems, we found either a
"HS-LC" pattern or a "LS-HC" pattern. In fact, with only a few exceptions, all four
categories having higher severity (HS) are weakly correlated with the various slllccess
measures (LC). This "HS-LC" pattern suggests that implementation problems related
to technological competence, strategic planning (of reengineering), project time
frame, and management support are quite difficult to manage, but reducing these
problems does not necessarily pave the way to success. In other words, addressing
these vital problems is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for reengineering
success.
Interestingly, the opposite pattern (LS-HC) was found for the four categories having
less severity (LS). These categories include human resource, process delim:ation,
project management, and tactical project planning. These problems may not be major
sources of difficulty during reengineering, but tendency to neglect them will prove
detrimental to project success. This is particularly evident in mitigating human
resource problems through training of personnel affected by the new process, devel-
oping new skills, and instituting new management systems to cultivate required values.
anking Patterns of Severity and Problem-Success Correlations
of problem severity+ Correlation between problems and reengineering success++

Customer Pattern of s
Average Overall Cost Cycle-time satisfaction Productivity Defects verity vs. co
ory severity score success reduction reduction increase increase reduction relation+++
gement H (21.9) H H H H H L HS-HC
compe- H (18.2)
L L L L L H HS-LC
ing H (17.2) L L L L H H HS-LC
H (16.4) L L L L L H HS-LC
upport H (15.6) H L L L L L HS-LC
ce L (14.8) H H H H H H LS-HC
ation L (14.0) L H H H H H LS-HC
ement L (11.7) H H H H H H LS-HC
ng L (10.3) H H H H H L LS-HC
ategory with average severity score greater than 15 percent is classified H (high); otherwise it is classified L (low).
ccess measure the five highest correlations with problem categories are classified H (high); the rest are classified L (low) (for
d defects, identical correlations result in six H's).
severity; HC = high correlation; LS = low severity; LC = low correlation.
138 GROVER. ET AL.
Given other implementation problems, especially change-management problems,

reengineering team members may not always focus their attention on these problems.
However, the redesigned process primarily depends on people, not machines to
operate. Ill-trained and under-motivated employees will inhibit success!
With the exception of change management, the overall "macro" patterns as dis-
cussed above indicate the existence of two groups of implementation problems-one
with the HS-LC pattern and one with the LS-HC pattern. The four categories induded
in the HS-LC group seem to relate more to the general project context and environ-
ment, whereas the second group (LS-HC) more directly involves the reenginl~ering
project itself. Problem categories in the first group include technological competence,
strategic planning, time frame, and management support problems. These types of
problems are often discussed in the context of MIS implementation and are not unique
to reengineering (e.g., [27, 55]). However, due to the breadth and depth of change
required for reengineering, these problems will be potentially more difficult to manage
and solve than in traditional MIS project contexts.
On the other hand, reengineering team members may have unintentionally treated
"lower-level" details ofreengineering work lightly, perhaps a natural response after
having handled the difficult organizational change and strategic planning problems.
However. human resource, process delineation, project management, and tactical
project planning efforts correspond directly to the core tasks ofreengineering, and the
consequence of neglecting these vital tasks will increase the likelihood of project
failure. Since reengineering is relatively new, practitioners are probably still some-
what inexperienced in the tactical aspects of how to conduct reengineering pr(~ects.
For example, an inappropriately scoped process (process delineation) [33] and an
inadequate BPR methodology (project management) [43] can seriously jeopardize the
project. Human resource problems also correspond to the tactical dimension. While
change management concerns the general organizational context for change at the
policy level, human resource problems focus on the specific tasks pertaining to people,
such as training and skill development within the project domain itself. When these
tasks are done poorly, the new process wiII be staffed by unskilled and undermotivated
employees. This would certainly lead to project failure even if the overall environment
has been favorable with respect to management support, commitment to chang,e, and
required technological competence.
Conclusion
THE CONCEPT OF BUSINESS PROCESS REENGINEERING WAS INTRODUCED only a few
years ago. However, the speed with which organizations embrace the idea and attempt
to implement it has been remarkable. As might be expected, the original excitement
concerning BPR's "outrageous" performance breakthroughs has been tempered by a
growing list offailures. The central concern is now focused on the difficult problems
in reengineering implementation and management [II] rather than further elaboration
of the concept. In this research, we seek to explore reengineering implementation
problems through an empirical field study. The list of implementation problems
evaluated are based on theories and studies in implementation as wel1 as recent

literature on reengineering management.
Findings from the study have a number of significant implications for both research
and practice. The study clearly demonstrated the central importance of change
management in reengineering implementation. Not only was change management
regarded as most chalIenging to undertake, it also showed a critical relationship to
project success. On the other hand, technological competence was viewed as difficult,
but had the least potential influence on project success. Thus, both social and technical
components of reengineering initiatives have been recognized by the respondents as
difficult, but the social elements are truly critical to reengineering success. While much
conceptual discussion and numerous anecdotal accounts have been reported empha-
sizing the people and organizational aspects of reengineering, this is the first piece of
empirical evidence based on a large sample showing a direct reflection of the
sociotechnical characteristics ofreengineering projects in the minds of those who have
attempted it. This is a critical step in the development of the reengineering field, as
the confirmation of reengineering as essentialIy managing process and organizational
change in a complex sociotechnical setting has profound implications for both
researchers and practitioners.
Change management is a complex. multifaceted process. Organizational theorists
have studied the dynamics of organizational change for many years [46. 53], and the
field of organizational development offers specific action programs for effective
change interventions [15]. Given the criticality of change management in reengineer-
ing revealed by our results, application of these change theories and intervention
techniques in reengineering should be a top priority. This would help researchers to
conduct hypothesis-based studies and develop grounded theories for reengineering
implementation. The examination of BPR implementation from a political process
perspective, as recently conducted by Smith and WiIIcocks [76], is a step in the right
direction.
The pattern of findings also reveals interesting similarities and differences between
MIS and reengineering implementation. Although problems such as management
support and technological competence. which have been considered crucial to MIS
implementation, stiII pose great chalIenges to reengineering project team members,
resolving these problems does not necessarily help with project success. On the other
hand, problems that are more directly related to the conduct of the project---.<mch as
human resource, process delineation. project management. and tactical planning--are
perceived as less difficult. However. these problems tum out to be highly related to
project success. These patterns suggest that reengineering projects are more complex,
involve more factors, and are more dynamic and unpredictable than conventional MIS
projects. To succeed in reengineering, it is essential that balanced attention be paid to
alI these factors, including those that are more indirect and contextual (e.g., manage-
ment support and technological competence) as welI as factors that pertain directly to
the conduct of the project, including project management and process delineation.
The study results have important implications for MIS professionals. Our findings
suggest that technological competence is necessary but never sufficient for reengin-
140 GROVER. ET AL.
eering success. To succeed in reengineering, it is critical to master change manage-

ment, which demands sophisticated people and business skills. MIS professionals,
accustomed to more "structured" projects aimed at automation of existing proct~dures,
may need reorientation and additional training for the "unstructured" project environ-
ment in reengineering [58].
This study represents a preliminary step toward understanding a complex phenom-
enon involving dynamic and fundamental change. The problem list and catt:gories
were based on cumulated research literature in implementation theories and experi-
ence from the field. A large number of reengineering projects were included in the
sample to generate results with some generalizability. The problem list and catt:gories
may help future researchers develop improved instruments for assessing BPR project
implementations. The results. however. should be interpreted with caution. The
correlations between problem severity and project success, for instance, do not
imply causality. The projects selected by the respondents for assessment may not
be representative of the variety of BPR initiatives attempted. Also. any interpre-
tation of the findings must be made in light of the selected set of problems and
categories.
As an interdisciplinary field of study, MIS research must draw theories and methods
from many reference disciplines. The field has evolved over the two and a half decades
since its inception. As IT has continued to decentralize in organizations and personal
computing has progressed into group and organizational computing, the field has
increasingly gravitated toward the study of IT application as a powerful variable in
organizational change. A framework for managing IT-enabled change, which was
proposed recently by Benjamin and Levinson [4], has incorporated many elements
from the change-management literature. The introduction and widespread adop-
tion of reengineering by organizations in the 1990s offer great opportunities to
MIS researchers to further broaden the relevance of the field through the study of
complex sociotechnical change phenomena. It is hoped that the results of this study
will facilitate further development of the field. Enlightened MIS researchers can
broaden their contribution to both practice and theory by examining implementa-
tion in the context of organizational change. As rich insights are particularly useful
in understanding the dynamic sociotechnical setting in reengineering, the case study
is a powerful methodology to further this line of enquiry. Maybe the time has arrived
when we can see contribution to general management theories coming from MIS
researchers.
NOTES
I. Since our interest was in assessing whether each problem was pervasive and significant,
a frequency measure was used, as opposed to conventional averaging.
2. The coefficient alpha is used in an exploratory vein in this case to assess internal
consistency or the gestalt effect of item movement with a factor, and we do not necessarily imply
unidimensional ity.
3. For productivity. there was one less L due to several identical correlations leading to
more H's.
REFERENCES
I. Allen, D.P., and Nafius, R. Dreaming and doing: reengineering GTE telephone opera-
tions. Planning Review, 21,2 (1993), 28--31.
2. Alter, A.E. The corporate make-over. ClO, 4, 3 (1990), 32-42.
3. Alter, S., and Ginzberg, M.1. Managing uncertainty in MIS implementation. Sloan
Management Review, 20, I (1978), 23-31.
4. Benjamin, R.I., and Levinson, E. A framework for managing IT-enabled change. Sloan
Management Review, 20, I (Summer 1993),23-33.
5. Berniker, E. Sociotechnical Systems Design: A Glossary ofTerms. Productivity Brief No.
25. Houston, TX: American Productivity Center, 1983.
6. Bostrom, R.P., and Heinen, J.S. MIS problems and failure: a sociotechnical perspective
(part I). MIS Quarterly, I, 3 (1977), 17-32.
7. Boynton, A.C., and Zmud, R.W. Information technology planning in the 1990's: direc-
tions for practice and research. MIS Quarterly, 11, I (1987),59-71.

8. Buday, R.S. Reengineering one firm's product development and another's service
delivery. Planning Review, 21, 2 (1993), 14-19.
9. Caldwell, B. Missteps, miscues. Information Week (June 20, 1994), 50--60.
10. Caron, J.R.; Jarvenpaa, S.L.; and Stoddard, D.B. Business reengineering at CIGNA
Corporation: experiences and lessons learned from the first five years. MIS Quarterly, 18, 3
(1994),233-250.
II. Champy, J.A. Reengineering Management: The Mandate for New Leadership. New
York: Harper Business, 1995.
12. Churchill, G.A., Jr. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs.
Journal ofMarketing Research, 16, I (1979),64-73.
13. Cole, C.c.; Clark, M.L.; and Nemec, C. Reengineering information systems at Cincinnati
Milacron. Planning Review, 21, 3 (1993), 22-26, 48.
14. CSC Index. State ofReengineering Report. CSC Index, 1994.
15. Cummings, T.C., and Huse, E.F. Organizational Development and Change. New York:
West Publishing, 1989.
16. Damanpour, F. Organizational innovation: a meta-analysis of effects of determinants and
moderators. Academy ofManagement Journal, 34, 3 (1991), 555-590.
17. Davenport, T.H. Process Innovation: Reengineering Work through Information Tech-
nology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1993.
18. Davenport, T.H. Need radical innovation and continuous improvement? Integrate process
reengineering and TQM. Planning Review, 21,3 (1993), 6-12.
19. Davenport, T.H., and Short, J. The new industrial engineering: information technology
and business process redesign. Sloan Management Review, 31, 4 (1990), 11-27.
20. Davidson, W.H. Beyond re-engineering: the three phases of business transformation.
IBM Systems Journal, 32, I (1993), 65-79.
21. Davis, G.B., and Olson, M.H. Management Information Systems: Conceptual Founda-
tions, Structure, and Development, 2d ed. New York: McGraw-Hili, 1985.
22. DeLone, W., and McLean, E.R. Information systems success: the quest for the dependent
variable./'!formation Systems Research, 3, I (1992),60-95.
23. Ettlie, J.E.; Bridges, W.P.; and O'Keefe, R.D. Organization strategy and structural
differences for radical versus incremental innovation. Management Science, 30, 6 (1984),
682.....{)95.
24. Fowler, FJ. Survey Research Methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1988.
25. Furey, T.R. A six-step guide to process reengineering. Planning Review, 21, 2 (1993),
20-23.
26. Ginzberg, MJ. A study of the implementation process. In R. Doktor, et al. (eds.), The
Implementation ofManagement Science. New York: North Holland, 1979, pp. 85-102.
27. Ginzberg, MJ. Early diagnosis of MIS implementation failure: promising results and
unanswered questions. Management SCience, 27, 4 (1981),459-478.
28. Grover, V.; Fiedler, K.D.; and Teng, J.T.C. Exploring the success of information
technology enabled business process reengineering. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Man-
agement, 41, 3 (1994). 276-284.
142 GROVER. ET AL.
29. Grover, V.; Lederer, A.L.: and Sabherwal, R.. Recognizing the politics ofM IS. Informa-
tion and Management, 14 (1988), 145-156.
30. Grover, V.; Teng, J.T.c.; and Fiedler, K.D. Information technology enabled business
process redesign: an integrated planning framework. Omega: The International Journal of
Management Science, 21, 4 (1993), 433-447.
31. Grover, V.; Teng, J.T.c.; and Fiedler, K.D. Technological and organizational '~nablers
of business process reengineering. In V. Grover and W.J. Kettinger (eds.), Business Process
Change: Concepts, Methods and Technologies. Harrisburg, PA: Idea Publishing Group, 1995.
32. Gulden, G.K., and Reck, R.H. Combining quality and reengineering efforts for process
excellence. Information Strategy: The Executive's Journal, 10, 1 (1992), 10-16.
33. Hall, G.; Rosenthal, 1.; and Wade, 1. How to make reengineering really work. Harvard
Business Review, 7l, 6 (1993), 119-131.
34. Hamilton, S., and Chervany, N.L. Evaluating information system effectiveness--part I:
comparing evaluation approaches. MIS Quarterly, 5, 3 (1981), 55-69.
35. Hammer, M., and Champy, J.A. Reengineering the Corporation: A Mani}~sto for
Business Revolution. New York: Harper Business, 1993.

36. Harrison, D.B.. and Pratt, M.D. A methodology for reengineering business. Planning
Review, 21. 2 (1993), 6-11.
37. Housel, T.1.; Morris, C.1.; and Westland. C. Business process reengineering at Pacific
Bell. Planning Review, 2i, 2 (1993),28-33.
38. Huber, G.P., and Power, 0.1. Research notes and communications retrospective: reports
of strategic-level managers: guidelines for increasing their accuracy. Strategic Management
Journal, 6(1985),171-180.
39. Ives, 8., and Olson, M.H. User involvement and MIS success: a review of TI!search.
Management Science, 30, 5 (1984), 586-603.
40. Jarvenpaa, S.L., and Ives, 8. Executive involvement and participation in the management
of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 15,2 (1991),205-227.
41. Kaplan, R.B., and Murdock, L. Core process redesign. McKinsey Quarterly, 2 (1991),
444-447.
42. Katzenbach, JR., and Smith, O.K. The rules for managing cross-functional reengineering
teams. Planning Review, 2i, 2 (1993), 12-13.
43. Kettinger, W.J; Guha, S.; and Teng, JT.C. The process reengineering life cycle meth-
odology: a case study. In V. Grover and W.J. Kettinger (eds.), Business Process Change:
Reengineering Concepts, Methods and Technologies. Harrisburgh. PA: Idea Publishing Group.
1995, pp. 210-244.
44. Klein, M.M. The most fatal reengineering mistakes. Information Strategy: The
Executive'sJournal, 10,4 (1994), 21-28.
45. Kling, R. Social analysis of computing: theoretical perspectives in recent empirical
research. Computing Surveys, 12, I (1980),61-110.
46. Kochan, T.A., and Useen, M. Achieving Systemic Organizational Change in Transform-
ing Organizations. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.
47. Kolb, D., and Frohman, A. An organizational development approach to consulting. Sloan
Management Review, 12, I (1970), 51-{)5.
48. Kwon, T.H., and Zmud, R.W. Unifying the fragmented models of information systems
implementation. In R.1. Boland, Jr., and R.A. Hirschheim (eds.), Critical issues in Information
Systems Research. New York: John Wiley, 1987, pp. 227-251.
49. LaPlante, A. Comdisco follows customers' client/server lead.lnfoworld (May 17, 1993),61.
50. Lawless. M.W. Implementation issues in criminal justice modeling. In R. Doktor et al.
(eds.), The implementation o(Management Science. New York: North Holland, 1979.
51. Lederer, A.L., and Mendelow, A.L. Information resource planning: overcoming difficul-
ties in identifying top management's objectives. MiS Quarterly, II, 3 (September 1987),
388-399.
52. Lederer, A.L., and Sethi. V. Critical dimensions of strategic information systems plan-
ning. Decision Sciences, 22, I (1991), \04-119.
53. Lewin, K. Field Theory in Social Science. New York: Harper and Row, 1951.
54. Lippitt. G.L.; Langseth, P.; and Mossop. J Implementing Organizational Change. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 1985.
55. Lucas, H.C. Empirical evidence for a descriptive model of implementation. MIS Quar-
terly, 2, 2 (1978), 27-4 I.
56. Markus. M.L. Power, politics and MIS implementation. Communications of the ACM,
26, 6 (1983),430-444.
57. Markus, M.L., and Robey, D. Information technology and organizational change: causal
structural in theory and research. Management Science, 34, 5 (1988), 583-598.
58. Markus, M. L., and Robey, D. Business process reengineering and the role of information
systems professionals. In V. Grover and W.J. Kettinger (eds.), Business Process Change:
Concepts. Methods and Technologies. Harrisburg, PA: Idea Publishing Group, 1995.
59. McLean, E.R., and Soden, 1. V. Strategic Planningfor MIS. New York: John Wiley, 1977.
60. Meyer, N.D., and Gardner, D.P. Political planning for innovation. Information Strategy:
The Executive's Journal, 9, 1 (1992), 5-10.
6 I. Mitchell, V., and Zmud, R.W. Strategy congruence and BPR rollout. In V. Grover and
W.J. Kettinger (eds.), Business Process Change: Concepts. Methods and Technologies. Harris-
burg, PA: Idea Publishing Group, 1995.
62. Morris. D., and Brandon. J. Re-engineering your Business. New York: McGraw-HilI,
1993.
63. Mumford, E., and Weir, M. Computer Systems in Work Design: The ETHICS Method.
New York: Wiley, 1979.
64. Musser, C.M. Implementing the lIT Vision: Business Process Reengineering. POSPP
Report No. P-12-2. Carrollton, TX: Chantico Publishing, 1992.
65. Pfeffer, J. Power in Organization. Marshfield, MA: Pitman Publishing, 1981.
66. Pierce, J.L., and Delbecq, A.L. Organization structure, individual attributes and innova-
tion. Academy qfManagement Review, 2, I (1977),27-37.
67. Pryor, L.S .. and Katz, S.J. How benchmarking goes wrong (and how to do it right).
Planning Review, 21, 1 (1993),6-1 I, 53.
68. Ramanujam, V.; Venkatraman, N.; and Camillus, J.C. Multi-objective assessment of
effectiveness of strategic planning: a discriminant analysis approach. Academy ofManagement
Journal, 29, 2 (1986), 347-372.
69. Rigby, D. The secret history of process reengineering. Planning Review, 21,2 (1993),
24-27.
70. Schendel, D., and Hofer, C.W. Strategic Management: A New View of Business Policy
and Planning. Boston: Little, Brown, 1979.
71. Schnitt, D.L. Reengineering the organization using information technology. Journal of
Systems Management, 14,20 (1993), 41-42.
72. Schriven, M. The methodology of evaluation: formative and summative evaluation. In
C.H. Weiss (ed.), Evaluating Action Programs. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1972.
73. Schultz, R.; Slevin, D.P.; and Pinto, J.K. Strategy and tactics in a process model of project
management. Interface, 17, 3 (1987), 34-46.
74. Shore, E.B. Business Reengineering: Fast Track to Operational Excellence. Critical
Technology Report No. C-2-2. Carrollton, TX: Chantico Publishing, 1992.
75. Sifonis, J.G. Strategic Alignment and BPR: A Holistic Approach. POSPP Report No.
P-I4-2. CarrolIton, TX: Chantico Publishing, 1992.
76. Smith, G., and Willcocks, I. Business process reengineering, politics and management:
from methodology to processes. In V. Grover and W.J. Kettinger (eds.), Business Process
Change: Concepts, Methods and Technologies. Harrisburg, PA: Idea Publishing Group, 1995.
77. Stow, R. Reengineering by objectives. Planning Review, 21,3 (1993), 14-16.
78. Teng, 1.T.C.; Grover, Y.; and Fiedler, K. Business process reengineering: charting a
strategic path for the information age. California Management Review, 36, 3 (1994),9-3 I.
79. Teng, J.T.C.; Kettinger, W.J.; and Guha, S. Business process redesign and information
architecture: establishing the missing links. In 1.1. DeGross, 1.D. Becker, and J.J. Elam (eds.),
Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Information Systems. Dallas, TX:
ICIS,1992.pp.81-89.
80. Utterback, J.M. Innovation in industry and the diffusion of technology. Science, 183
(1974), 62~26.
81. Venkatraman, N . IT-enabled business transformation: from automation to business scope
redefinition. Sloan Management Review. 35. 2 (1994). 73-87.
144 GROVER. ET AL.
82. Woolfe, R. The path to strategic alignment. Information Strategy: The Executive's
Journal, 10,2 (1993),13-23.
83. Yin, R.K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Newbury Park. CA: Sage Publi-
cations, 1989.
84. Zand, D.E., and Sorensen, R.E. Theory of change and the effective use of management
science. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20, 4 (1975), 532-545.
85. Zemke, R. Sociotechnical systems: bringing people and technology together. Training.
24 (1987), 47-57.

Grover 1995

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Grover 1995

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Management Information Systems

ISSN: 0742-1222 (Print) 1557-928X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/mmis20

The Implementation of Business Process

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07421222.1995.11518072

Published online: 11 Dec 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

Citing articles: 20 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Download by: [University of Pennsylvania] Date: 15 February 2016, At: 11:07

VARUN GROVER, SEUNG RYUL JEONG,

V ARUN GROVER. See Guest Editors' Introduction.

WILLIAM J. KEITINGER. See Guest Editors' Introduction.

JAMES T.C. TENG is Associate Professor at the College of Business Administration,

ABSTRACT: As more organizations undertake business process reengineering (BPR),

KEY WORDS AND PHRASES: business process reengineering, change management,

CORPORAnONS HAVE UNDERGONE AND CONTINUE TO UNDERGO fundamental change.

relationships among such organizational subcomponents as management, people,

1. What are the problems related to implementation of business process reen-

Implementation of Business Process Change: A Basis for Inquiry

Initiating and Motivating Business Process Change

Managing Resistance to Change: The Value of Change Management

managing the transition, and sustaining momentum.

Sociotechnical Change: The Value of Human and

software) all designed as a system to accomplish the transformations required by an

Commitment for Change: The Value of Management Support

Project Definition and Planning: The Value of Project Preparedne:ss

BPR Implementation Problems: Drawing from Past Studies

innovative product, process, and technology-based changes within an organizational

methodology. Innovation research emphasizes organizational structure, particularly

implementations of business reengineering, these studies have been largely anecdotal

Figure 1. Steps in the Research Methodology

Table I Potential Problems in Reengineering Implementation

Management support problems

Insufficient understanding about the goals Katzenbach and Smith [42]

Technological competence problems

Process delineation problems

Project planning problems

business reengineering efforts

Project management problems

view determines success by attainment of a normative state.

be: to what extent is the goal(s) of reengineering fulfilled? Such comparison is

level of improvement with the planned level, via the ratio.

Profile of Responding Firms and Respondents

Table 2 Respondents by Industry

Industry type Frequency Percent

Total 239 100

cent). Another five industrial categories (utility, information services, telecommuni-

Relative Severity of Reengineering Implementation Problems

nking/finance; IS = information services; RT =retail; DS =distribution; MF =manufacturing; SV =services; HC = health

Table 4 Severity of Reengineering Implementation Problems

Rank Score* Problem Category**

1 31.8 Need for managing change is not recognized eM

"depth" dimension of change required for process reengineering. The difficulty in

Further Refinement of Problem Categories

Table 5 Finalized Categories of Reengineering Implementation Problems

Factor and items Loadings

( 1) Factors for management support problems

lation to business engineering

(2) Factors for technological competence problems

(3) Factors for process delineation problems

(4) Factors for project planning problems

Lack of alignment between corporate planning and IT planning 0.829