Business Process Reengineering: Rest in Peace

1
Business Process Reengineering Rest in Peace?

• Peter Seddon, PhD
• Senior Lecturer
• Department of Information Systems
• The University of Melbourne
• p.seddon_at_dis.unimelb.edu.au
• http//www.dis.unimelb.edu.au/staff/peter

2
Business Process Reengineering Rest in Peace?

• Chinese version translated by
• Bin Hu
• Department of Information Systems
• The University of Melbourne
• bin_at_staff.dis.unimelb.edu.au

3
Business Process Reengineering RIP?

• 1. Definition and brief history of BPR
• 2. Four BPR success stories, pre 1995
• 3. BPR Success factors
• 4. Research findings
• 5. Summary and Lessons

4
Business Process Reengineering RIP?

• 1. Definition and brief history of BPR
• 2. Four BPR success stories, pre 1995
• 3. BPR Success factors
• 4. Research findings
• 5. Summary and Lessons

5
1. BPR Definition and history

• Reengineering is the radical redesign of
  business processes for dramatic improvement.

Hammer, M., Beyond Reengineering, NY Harper
Business, 1996, p.xii
6
1. BPR Definition and history

• A business process is a set of logically
  related tasks that use the resources of an
  organization to achieve a defined business
  outcome.

Davenport, T. and Short, J., The new industrial
engineering information technology and business
process redesign, Sloan Management Review, 32
1990 11-27.
7
BPR Definition and history

• Popularized by Michael Hammer, Tom Davenport, and
  others 1988-1995.

Hammer, M., Dont Automate, Obliterate, Harvard
Business Review Jul-Aug,1990 Hammer, M. and
Champy, J. Reengineering the Corporation, Harper
Business, 1993 (HC)

• By mid-1994, 1.7 million copies of HC had been
  sold around the world (translated into 19
  languages)

8
BPR Definition and history

• Hammer et al. argued that many things were done
  in organizations because that was the way they
  had always been done, not because they added
  value.
• He said computer technology made it possible to
  combine simple tasks previously performed by many
  different people into more complex one-person
  jobs that provided higher levels of customer
  service.

9
(No Transcript)
10
Hammers Process-Centred Organization Hammer,
Beyond Reengineering, 1996, p.126 (and Harvard
Business Review, Nov-Dec 1999)
11
BPR Definition and history
IBM Credit (Source Sia and Neo, JMIS 1997, p.71)
12
BPR Definition and history

• In addition, and consistent with Demings work on
  Total Quality Management (TQM),
• Hammer argued that if employees were treated as
  creative, responsible people (empowered), they
  would contribute much more value to the
  organization.

13
BPR Definition and history

• In the period 1988-1995 there was huge interest
  in BPR in the USA Europe.
• Consultants made a lot of money helping firms
  reengineer.
• However, for many people today, BPR is a dirty
  word.
• BPR is now associated with massive retrenchments,
  turmoil, and failed plans for restructuring
  organizations.

14
BPR Definition and history

• Here are some definitions Strassmann collected
  about Reengineering
• taking and axe and machine gun to your existing
  organization
• reengineering will require a lobotomy
• what you do with the existing structure is nuke
  it!
• break legs

15
BPR Todays presentation

• Today, I will argue that BPR has passed through
  both its hype and disillusionment phases, and has
  now emerged a useful way of describing IT-based
  process change.
• e.g., Electronic Commerce can be defined as
  reengineering the supply chain.

• My goal today is to show how usage of the term
  BPR (or BPDesign, or BPChange) has evolved, and
  what it means today.

16
Business Process Reengineering RIP?

• 1. Definition and brief history of BPR
• 2. Four BPR success stories, pre 1995
• 3. BPR Success factors
• 4. Research findings
• 5. Lessons

17
2.Four BPR success stories, pre 1995

• 1 Hammers Ford Accounts Payable
• 2 Banca di America e di Italia (Deutche bank)
• 3 PBX sales at ATT
• 4 Siemens Nixdorf Service

Example 1 Hammer and Champy, 1993,
pp.39-44. Examples 2,3,4 Hall, G., Rosenthal,
and Wade, How to Make Reengineering Really
Work, Harvard Business Review, Nov-Dec 1993,
pp.119-131.)
18
1 Hammers Ford Accounts Payable example

• In the late 1980s, Ford had a traditional
  purchasing and accounts payable system

Purchase Requisitions (from manufacturing),
Purchase orders, Receiving reports, Supplier
invoices, Statements

• Clerks in Accounts payable checked to ensure
  Purchase Requisitions (from manufacturing),
  Purchase orders, Receiving reports, Supplier
  invoices, Statements that for each invoice, there
  was both a purchase order and a receiving report.
  If OK, they authorized payment.
• From an internal control point of view, there
  were good reasons for this process design.
• There were 500 staff in Fords Accounts Payable
  dept. Presumably, the dept. was running
  efficiently.

19
1 Hammers Ford Accounts Payable example

• In the late 1980s, Ford bought a 25 stake in
  Mazda and compared staffing levels in different
  departments. There were only 5 staff in Mazdas
  Accounts Payable. Yet Mazda was not 100 times
  smaller.
• Q How come?
• A Mazda had a different process.
• So Ford changed its process and reduced Accounts
  Payable staff by about 75. (370 people more
  than 10M p.a.)
• Q What did they do?

20
1 Hammers Ford Accounts Payable example

• A They placed computer terminals in the
  Receiving dept. When goods arrived, Receiving
  checked the goods had been ordered. If accepted,
  funds were transferred automatically to the
  supplier.
• Hammer argues that to save the money, Ford had to
  shift from functional thinking, i.e., improving
  the efficiency of the Accounts Payable dept., to
  process thinking.
• The process was procurement ordering, receiving,
  and paying.
• The Accounts Payable function added little of
  value to the process (and ultimately to the
  customer).

21
1 Hammers Ford Accounts Payable example
Summary

• Reengineering is the radical redesign of
  business processes for dramatic improvement.
  (Hammer, 1996)
• radical 500 staff dropped to 130
• process cross-functional
• computer technology enabling

22
2 Banca di America e di Italia (Deutche bank)

• After 1993, when you deposited cheques at BAI,
  the teller ran them through a scanner at the
  counter, and funds were automatically
  transferred, there and then, from accounts at the
  other banks. There was no back office.
• BAI top executives wanted to create a paperless
  bank. 80 of the banks revenue came from retail
  operations.
• Top executives spent 20 - 60 of their time on
  the project.

23
2 Banca di America e di Italia (Deutche bank)

• In Oct. 1988, two teams systematically diagnosed
  processes and redesigned them without considering
  the constraints of the current organization.
  p.125
• First, the organization team broke down all
  transaction types into families, such as
  payments, deposits, withdrawals, money orders,
  bills, consumer credit, foreign exchange, credit
  cards (merchant and card holder), sourcing, and
  end-of-day processing.
• They documented in detail one process for each
  family, then redesigned it from scratch.

24
2 Banca di America e di Italia (Deutche bank)

• The cheque deposit transaction, for instance
• Before 64 activities, 9 forms, and 14 accounts.
  
• After 25 activities, 2 forms, and 2
  accounts.

• The redesigned process then became the prototype
  for all transactions in the family.
• Finally, the organization team handed off the
  design to the technology team. That team
  suggested a client-server architecture.

25
2 Banca di America e di Italia (Deutche bank)

• In April 1989 (7 months after start), the
  organization team began redesigning all processes
  in each transaction family based on the original
  prototype. A total of 300 processes were
  redesigned.
• Meanwhile, the technology team began to build
  systems. Branch managers and tellers helped
  design the screens.
• February 1990, software began to be rolled out,
  one process at a time. Tellers were given a
  five-day training period. Branches were
  restructured. The manager was placed out in
  front, with the customers.

26
2 Banca di America e di Italia (Deutche bank)

• By 1993, the bank had
• 50 new branches, with no increase in personnel
• revenue doubled,1987 to 1994 (1/4 due to BPR),
• average personnel per branch dropped from 8 to 4
• daily cashier closing time from 2 hours to 10
  mins
• Summary Used computer technology to achieve
  significant improvements in process performance.
• Aside Today, many Australian banks are closing
  branches, and the potential of internet banking
  means that more change may be coming their way.

27
3 PBX sales at ATT

• US4B annual sales of PBX equipment
• By 1989, each year the business had met higher
  performance targets for individual functions, but
  overall profit did not increase.
• The president decided to redesign the businesss
  core processes.
• He appointed a top-performing sales branch
  manager as team leader, plus a full-time team
  from a wide range of functions sales, services,
  product management, Bell Labs, manufacturing,
  materials management, information systems, and
  training.
• He told them that if they failed, the business
  would be sold or liquidated.

28
3 PBX sales at ATT June 1989-Feb 1990

• Team surveyed steps from initial customer contact
  through to collection of funds.
• Interviewed employees and customers and
  constructed 24 cases which they then analyzed in
  great detail.
• They identified every person involved, their
  activities, and how their time was spent.
• Details
• an account executive negotiated the sale,
• a system consultant determined the specifications
  for the system,
• a technician installed the hardware

29
3 PBX sales at ATT

• In all, 16 handoffs were required to install a
  new system.
• No one had responsibility for the entire
  transaction.
• It could take up to a year to get a large system
  installed, by which time customer needs might
  have changed ? dissatisfaction.
• Front-line employees lacked information on profit
  contribution of their actions. Marketing often
  concentrated on low-profit customers. Sales
  concentrated on maximizing revenue, not profit.
• Too much use of headquarters staff for various
  tasks, but little value added.
• Sales staff worked for ATT, not the PBX firm,
  and their main sales were not PBXs. So sales
  staff knew little about PBXs, which did not
  impress customers.

30
3 PBX sales at ATT Redesign

• Appointed Pat Russo to build and run a new PBX
  sales force.
• Her goal was to maximize profit and minimize time
  between sale and installation.
• Redesign team proposed a new position, called
  Project Manager, defined tasks that cut handoffs
  down from 12 to 3, and estimated that for a
  typical small system
• the cycle time could be cut from 3 months to 3
  weeks,
• costs would drop by one third
• errors would approach zero.

31
3 PBX sales at ATT Redesign

• The team then turned its attention to the
  organizational ramifications of the redesign.
  The radically different job responsibilities
  posed an immense human-resource problem. p.127
• Using PCs and off-the-shelf software existing
  systems were simplified, and new systems designed
  to reduce cycle times and provide accurate profit
  estimation and job tracking.
• Rollout April 1991-April 1992

32
3 PBX sales at ATT

• Results
• Customer willingness to repurchase 53 ?82
• adjustments dropped from 4 to 0.6 of revenues
• bills paid in 30 days from installation 31? 71
  
• 88 of customers rate project management of their
  sale and installation as excellent
• Summary
• Redesigning the process caused these
  improvements. The actual PBXs did not change. By
  changing process, it was possible to produce big
  increases in value to the customer.

33
4 Siemens Nixdorf Service

• DM 3.4B (US 2.1B) revenue Siemens Nixdorf
  Service (SNS) installs, services, maintains, and
  networks software and hardware sold by Siemens
  Nixdorf.
• By late 1990, the 12,900-person company was still
  making profits but forecasting losses by 1995.
• General manager, Gerhard Radtke assembled a
  ten-person team to restructure headquarters to
  reduce personnel by 50.

34
4 Siemens Nixdorf Service

• September-December 1991 The team confirmed the
  profit forecasts but argued that reducing HQ
  staff would not be sufficient. Instead, they
  suggested the entire 11,400 person
  field-servicing organization needed to be
  streamlined.
• SNS had 30 support centres in Germany, fully
  staffed with specialists continuously available
  for telephone enquiries. Some specialists only
  received a few phone calls per day. Most times
  when technicians visited a site, they identified
  the problem, then returned to base for parts (two
  trips per call).

35
4 Siemens Nixdorf Service

• Redesign proposals for SNS
• Reduce the number of support centres 30 ? 5.
• Found that in 80 of cases, and expert could
  diagnose the problem over the phone. Once
  diagnosed, could airfreight parts to customer or
  place in technicians car ? most repairs could be
  completed on first service call.
• Team also proposed
• reducing management hierarchy by two levels,
• creating a new team structure for field
  technicians,
• reducing HQ personnel from 1,600 to 800.

36
4 Siemens Nixdorf Service

• August-October 1992
• trialled the proposal in Frankfurt, good
  results
• 35 reduction in personnel
• technicians productivity doubled (2?4/day)
• November 1992 - December 1993 Rollout
• Results
• of problems solved remotely 10 ? 25
• profit and cost improvements in excess of 10
• employee headcount reduced by 20 (through
  voluntary retirement and severance packages)
• plan to service other non-SN equipment in future

37
Summary Four BPR success stories, pre 1995

• Reengineering (BPR) meant radical change in
  business processes (not 5-10 improvements).
• Usually it meant cross-functional change.
• It could be applied to all sorts of organizations
  (e.g., manufacturing and service) in all sorts of
  processes (e.g., sales and support).
• Usually it referred to administrative processes,
  not manufacturing. (Manufacturing is the domain
  of TQM, which was about incremental, not radical
  change.)

38
Summary Four BPR success stories, pre 1995

• In some cases, BPR led to dramatic improvements
  in performance.
• In many other cases, BPR projects failed.
• BPR was often associated with downsizing.
• Firms in financial trouble often attempted to use
  BPR, in a last-ditch attempt to cut costs.
• BPR appealed to senior management ego

39
Business Process Reengineering RIP?

• 1. Definition and brief history of BPR
• 2. Four BPR success stories, pre 1995
• 3. BPR Success factors
• 4. Beyond reengineering?
• 5. Research findings
• 6. Lessons

40
3. BPR Success factors
Hammer, M. Stanton, S., The Reengineering
Revolution A Handbook, Harper Business, 1995

• Ch.2 Ten Top Ways to Fail at Reengineering
• Ch.3 The Primary Ingredient Leadership
• Ch.4 The 2nd Ingredient The Reengineering Team
• Ch.5 Do you need help? Consultants
• Ch.6 Are you ready for reengineering?
  (Checklist)
• Ch.8 The Hardest Part of Reengineering

41
Ch. 2 Ten Top Ways to Fail at Reengineering

• 1. Dont reengineer but say that you are.
• 2. Dont focus on processes.
• 3. Spend a lot of time analyzing the current
  situation.
• 4. Proceed without strong executive leadership.
• 5. Be timid in redesign.

42
Ch. 2 Ten Top Ways to Fail at Reengineering

• 6. Go directly from conceptual design to
  implementation.
• 7. Reengineer slowly.
• 8. Place some aspects of the business off-limits.
• 9. Adopt a conventional implementation style.
• 10. Ignore the concerns of your people.

43
Ch.3 The Primary Ingredient Leadership

• It is an unalterable axiom of reengineering that
  it only succeeds when driven from the topmost
  levels of an organization. (p.34)
• In our experience, the quality of an
  organizations leadership is an absolute
  predictor of its reengineering success.
  Companies with strong leadership will succeed
  because they will do what it takes to ensure
  (p.36)

44
Ch.3 The Primary Ingredient Leadership

• Does it have to be the CEO? No. Put most
  simply, a leader is someone in a position to
  compel the compliance of all parties involved in
  reengineering. (p.36)
• If there is a single word that captures an
  effective leaders style it is relentlessness.
  (p.41)
• The leader is the motivator, the cheerleader,
  the spiritual advisor... (p.46)

45
Ch.4 The Second Ingredient The Reengineering
Team

• The team must transcend the constituencies it
  represents. To this end, team members should not
  expect to return to their home departments when
  the reengineering assignment is over. (p.62)

Content Understanding the old, inventing the
new, constructing the new, selling the
new. Context Uncertainty, Experimentation,
Pressure
46
Ch. 5 Do you need help? Consultants

• Business people dont all share the same
  feelings about consultants
• Some hate them,
• while others hate them a lot. (p.68)
• those who attempt a Himalayan climb for the
  first time usually hire an experienced Sherpa
  guide. (p.73)

47
Ch. 5 Do you need help? Consultants

• Everyone inside a company has a political stake
  in reengineering, some turf or job to protect,
  some position to covet. (p.76)
• Since power is a zero-sum game and change
  virtually always disturbs power relationships,
  everyone on the inside can probably be seen as
  having a vested interest (p.76)

48
Ch. 6 Self-assessment Diagnostic (20 questions)

• Examples
• 1. The leader of reengineering is a senior
  executive who is strongly committed to
  reengineering and who possesses the title and
  authority necessary to institute fundamental
  change. (p.86)
• 7. The organization as a whole recognizes the
  need for reengineering and fundamental change.
  (p.87)

49
Ch. 6 Self-assessment Diagnostic (20 questions)

• 15. The organization places a high value on
  serving customers and has a solid understanding
  of customer needs. (p.87)
• 20. Measurement systems and performance goals
  have been established to chart the progress of
  reengineering. (p.88)
• (Will show test of validity of the HS
  diagnostic later in this presentation.)

50
Ch. 8 The Hardest Part of Reengineering

• Reengineering is agonizingly, heartbreakingly
  tough (CEO Aetna Life, Hammer and Stanton,
  p.117)
• In our experience with companies struggling to
  implement reengineering, the number one source of
  their difficulties has been in this area of
  coping with the reactions of the people in the
  organization to the enormity of the change.
  (p.119)

51
Business Process Reengineering RIP?

• 1. Definition and brief history of BPR
• 2. Four BPR success stories, pre 1995
• 3. BPR Success factors
• 4. Research findings
• 5. Lessons

52
4. Research findings

• 22 papers in the References section of the paper
  below relate to academic studies of various
  aspects of reengineering (1994-7)

Guha, S., Grover, V., Kettinger, W., and Teng,
J., Business Process Change and Organizational
Performance Exploring an Antecedent Model
Journal of MIS, (14,1) Summer 1997 119-154

• I estimate there have been about 50 academic
  studies of BPR around the world.

53
Research findings

• Today, review results from three studies
• Stoddard and Jarvenpaa, 1995
• Grover, Jeong, Kettinger, and Teng, 1995
• Murphy, Staples, and Seddon, 1998 1999

54
Stoddard and Jarvenpaa, 1995

• Case studies of three firms in 1993
• Revenue Employees
• DefenseCo US1.3B
• FoodCo US1.5B 3,500
• FinanceCo US 0.6B 2,000
• 8 to 25 interviews at each firm

Stoddard, D.B., and Jarvenpaa, S. Business
Process Redesign Tactics for Managing Radical
Change, Journal of MIS, (12,1) Summer 1995
81-107.
55
Stoddard and Jarvenpaa, 1995

• Scope Depth of change
• DefenseCo Functional Efficiency
• FoodCo Cross-funct. Effectiveness
• FinanceCo Org-wide Transformation
• Change was initiated in DefenseCo and FinanceCo
  using revolutionary change tactics If we do not
  do this, we will not survive.
• At FoodCo the project was presented as an
  opportunity to generate more wealth.

56
Stoddard and Jarvenpaa, 1995

• Change practices
• In both FoodCo and FinanceCo, design involved
  revolutionary change, but the pilot and
  implementation phases were evolutionary.
• For DefenseCo, a mixture of evolutionary and
  revolutionary changes was used in both design and
  implementation stages.

57
Stoddard and Jarvenpaa, 1995
Source Stoddard Jarvenpaa, 1995, Figure 3,
p.103 Use of Revolutionary and Evolutionary
Tactics
58
Stoddard and Jarvenpaa, 1995

• Conclusions (about BPR as practiced)
• Use of revolutionary tactics appeared to require
  a true crisis in the organization (p.103)
• BPR does not always result in radical change in
  a short period of time (p.104)
• although reengineering can deliver radical
  designs, it does not necessarily promise a
  revolutionary approach to change. (p.105)

59
Grover et al. 1995

• Developed a questionnaire about six problem areas
  for BPR, containing a total of 64 questions.
• 853 Questionnaires sent to members of a US
  management organization.
• 239/853 responses ( 30), from a wide range of
  industries, all with over 1,000 employees.

Grover, V. Jeong, S. Kettinger, W. and Teng, J.
The Implementation of Business Process
Reengineering, Journal of MIS, (12,1) Summer
1995 109-144.
60
Grover et al. 1995

• 105 organizations had completed at least one BPR
  project. Example projects customer service (13),
  product development (13), order management (10).
• Factor analysis indicated there should be nine
  categories of problem, not six.
• Severity scores (average of respondents who
  indicated the issue was a major or extreme
  problem) for each of the nine problem categories
  were then calculated.

61
Serious Problem Areas for BPR and Correlations
with Perceived Success

• Problem Area Av Severity Correl
• Change Management - Organizat. 22 -0.35
• Technological competence 18 -0.19
• Project Planning - strategic 17 -0.28
• Project management -Time frame 16 -0.27
• Management support 16 -0.36
• Change Management - Individual 15 -0.51
• Process delineation 14 -0.30
• Project management- general 12 -0.42
• Project Planning - tactical 10 -0.33
• ( significantly correlated at plt0.01)

62
Grover et al. 1995

• Conclusions (1)
• The most difficult BPR problems to manage in the
  US in 1994 appear to have been
• Organizational Change Management (resistance,
  politics, communication)
• Technological Competence (lack of IT expertise,
  insuffic understanding of data)
• Strategic Project Planning (lack of alignment of
  corporate and IT planning, strategic vision)

63
Grover et al. 1995

• Conclusions (2)
• The BPR problems most highly correlated with
  success in the US in 1994 appear to have been
• Individual Change Management (inadequate
  training, insufficient time to develop new
  skills, indiv. incentives)
• General Project Management (poor communication in
  team, lack of methodology, performance
  measurement)
• Management Support (lack of senior management
  leadership, top management support)

64
Australian BPR Study The University of Melbourne
Replication of Grover et al. plus a test of
Hammer and Stantons BPR-readiness diagnostic.
Murphy, F. and Staples, S., Reengineering in
Australia Factors affecting Success,
Australasian Conference on Information Systems,
September, 1997
Murphy, F. and Seddon, P. and Staples, S. Testing
Hammer and Stantons Reengineering-Success
Diagnostic, Australasian Conference on
Information Systems, December, 1999
65
Murphy et al. 1998

• Similar questionnaire to Grovers. Sent to CEOs
  of the top 1000 Australian private and public
  organizations.
• Two parts senior manager project leader.
• Senior managers were asked to complete their part
  of the questionnaire and pass the other part to a
  BPR project leader.
• 239/1000 responses (24) 137 from senior
  managers, and 102 from project leaders who had
  completed reengineering projects.

66
Murphy et al. 1998

• Results with the Australian data
• Only project leaders answered questions about
  Grover et al.s 64 items.
• There were many differences in rankings of the 64
  problem areas, but rankings correlated 0.6 with
  Grover et al.s rankings.
• There was no significant correlation between
  rankings of the nine categories in the two
  studies (Australia vs US).

67
Serious Problem Areas for BPR and Correlations
with Perceived Success

• Problem Area Aus US AusCorr.
• Change Management - Org. 27 22 -0.37
• Technological competence 23 18 -0.22
• Project Planning - strategic 18 17 -0.31
• Project mgt -Time frame 25 16 -0.42
• Management support 27 16 -0.32
• Change Management - Indiv 31 15 -0.26
• Process delineation 18 14 -0.43
• Project mgt- general 21 12 -0.39
• Project Planning - tactical 18 10 -0.38
• ( significantly correlated at plt0.01)

68
Murphy et al. 1998

• Conclusions about Grover et al.s factors
• All nine categories of problems with BPR are
  either hard to manage or significantly correlated
  with success!
• Organizational change management appears as a
  near-top issue on all criteria.
• The Australian results are from project managers,
  who will have been closely involved in the
  project, and so may place a higher value on
  solving practical problems.

69
Murphy et al. 1998

• Test of Hammer Stantons BPR Readiness
  Diagnostic
• Did your org./project pass threshhold?
• Snr Mgr Proj Leader
• Reengineering Leadership 40 42
• Organizational Readiness 76 54
• Style of Implementation 71 48
• Overall Score 55 26
• Perceived Success of subsequent
• reengineering project(s) 80 81 (106/133) (77
  /95)

70
Murphy et al. 1998

• Test of Hammer Stantons BPR Readiness
  Diagnostic
• Correlation with Perceived Success
• Snr Mgr Proj Leader
• Reengineering Leadership 0.28 0.08
• Organizational Readiness 0.28 0.24
• Style of Implementation 0.34 0.11
• Overall Score 0.33 0.17
• significant at plt0.01
• significant at plt0.05

71
Murphy et al. 1998

• Conclusions about Hammer and Stantons
  diagnostic Is your organization ready for BPR?
• the threshold levels appear to be higher than
  necessary for successful projects
• HSs factors are correlated with 133 senior
  managers perceptions of subsequent success
• for 95 project leaders, the Organizational
  readiness factor was also correlated with
  subsequent success.

72
Business Process Reengineering RIP?

• 1. Definition and brief history of BPR
• 2. Four BPR success stories, pre 1995
• 3. BPR Success factors
• 4. Research findings
• 5. Summary and Lessons

73
5. Summary and Lessons
Reengineering is the radical redesign of
business processes for dramatic improvement.
74
5. Summary and Lessons

• Now, with a critical mass of business process
  change (BPC) projects concluded, it is
  appropriate to take a retrospective look at the
  implications, prescriptions, or lessons we can
  extract from these collective experiences.

Grover, V. and Kettinger, W.J., Special Section
The Impacts of Business Process Change on
Organizational Performance, Journal of MIS,
Summer 1997, 14,1 9-12.
75
5. Summary and Lessons

• Assimilated in these experiences is the
  realization that reengineerings operative word
  is not radical but process, with the
  directive to create end-to-end value for the
  customer.
• the obliterate and rebuild mentality of
  earlier years is giving way to more sober,
  deliberate, and often moderate approaches to BPC
  and process management. (BPCbusiness process
  change)

76
5. Summary and Lessons

• BPR is now perceived as just another example of
  major organizational change projects involving
  IT.
• The critical success factors are those identified
  in numerous prior major IT-change projects over
  the last 20-30 years. They are no different for
  BPR.

77
5. Summary and Lessons

• Key success factors seem to be
• Change management (both organizational and
  individual learning)
• Top management support
• Project management
• Technology competence is necessary, but is not
  sufficient for success.
• Because of cultural differences, the factors may
  be different in China.

78
5. Summary and Lessons
Change Management important here
Based on Stoddard Jarvenpaa, 1995, Fig. 3,
p.103 Use of Revolutionary and Evolutionary
Tactics
79
Questions?

• Peter Seddon and Bin Hu
• Department of Information Systems
• The University of Melbourne
• p.seddon_at_dis.unimelb.edu.au
• http//www.dis.unimelb.edu.au/staff/peter
• Printed material
• Hammer and Stantons diagnostic
• Grovers 1995 paper